1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes and the statute of limitations

A. Article 3 (1) 16 (b) of the former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 10618, Apr. 30, 201; hereinafter “the Act”) provides that “payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country” shall be “payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country”; Article 3 (1) 16 (e) of the same Act provides that “business similar to the above (b) and which are prescribed by Presidential Decree” shall be “foreign exchange business”; Article 6 (4) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22493, Nov. 15, 2010) provides that “business incidental to the business, such as Article 3 (1) 16 (b) of the Act, shall fall under “business prescribed by Presidential Decree”; therefore, any incidental business directly necessary and closely related to “payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country” shall fall under foreign exchange business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1603 Decided May 8, 2008). In addition, where a number of unregistered foreign exchange businesses in violation of Articles 27(1)5 and 8(1) of the Act continue to be conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, each act constitutes a single comprehensive crime.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Do5341 delivered on August 22, 2003).

The court below determined that each transactional act was directly necessary and closely related to the "payment, collection and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country," and that each transactional act was an incidental business directly necessary and closely related to the "payment, collection and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country," and that the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted by the court below.