[외국환관리법위반][공1979.5.15.(608),11783]
Whether the appropriation of money borrowed for the stay expenses in a foreign country violates the Foreign Exchange Control Act.
It is also contrary to the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act unless the authorities permit, approve or certify the shortage of stay expenses in a foreign country pursuant to the proviso of paragraph (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Management Act.
Article 33 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act
Defendant
Attorney Go-hee et al.
Seoul Criminal Court Decision 78No5210 delivered on November 1, 1978
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.
The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in the same purport shall be deemed to be in conflict with the Foreign Exchange Control Act, unless the authority's permission, approval or certification under the proviso of Article 33 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is granted, and the decision of the court of first instance cited by the court below in the same purport shall not be deemed to be in violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.
The issue is groundless.
We examine the second ground for appeal.
In light of the records, since the act of the defendant's act such as the time of original adjudication in Japan cannot be deemed to have been related to the business prescribed in Article 3 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, it cannot be deemed that the judgment of the court below has an effect on the result of the judgment because the court below neglected the judgment on the argument of the lawsuit because the defendant's act was committed in violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.
Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)