(b) Where the subject of payment and the receipt of the payment are made for the acquisition of foreign currency under Article 22 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, the subject of confiscation and collection;

B. Article 36 Section 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that the criminal intends to deprive him of the profits gained by the crime, and the payment subject to Article 22 Section 1 of the same Act provides that the provisional payment or the provisional payment shall be made, and since Article 22 Section 2 of the same Act provides that the defendant (A) shall be paid in Korean currency for the acquisition of foreign currency to the defendant (B) and receives it, if the defendant (B) pays it in Korean currency for the acquisition of foreign currency to the defendant (B), the benefit of the crime subject to confiscation or the additional collection shall be the Korean won won received by the (A) and thus, it shall be sufficient to collect it from subparagraph (B) and it shall not be additionally collected from subparagraph (A).

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

The so-called so-called crime is a opposing crime, which requires the existence of two or more acts as necessary accomplices, and therefore cannot be applied to the general provisions of the Criminal Act concerning accomplices. Thus, the court below is just in holding that Defendant 1 paid 595,245,000 won to Defendant 2 for the acquisition of 80,000 U.S. dollars total amount and that Defendant 2 received 595,245,000 won won total amount from the transfer of 80,000 U.S. dollars total amount, respectively, under the premise that Defendant 1's act is an opposing crime, i.e., a crime under Article 22 subparag. 1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and Article 22 subparag. 2 of the same Act with respect to Defendant 2's criminal acts, and that there is no relation with each of the criminal acts under Article 22 subparag. 2 of the same Act with respect to each of the above crimes and that there is no separate opinion against the court below's finding that Defendant 2 was not guilty.

Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that the purpose of Article 36-2 of the same Act is to deprive the criminal of his profits from the crime, and the payment subject to Article 22-1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that the provisional payment or the loan of Article 22-1 of the same Act and the receipt of payment by Article 22-2 of the same Act shall be the requirements of each crime. Thus, the existing profits from each crime of the defendant, etc., who is subject to confiscation or collection in this case, shall be KRW 595,245,000 in Korean won, which is paid by the defendant 1 and received by the defendant 2, and it shall not be additionally collected from the defendant 2.

On the other hand, if Defendant 1 cannot be confiscated and collected from Defendant 1, it is necessary to apply Article 23 subparag. 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act to the crime of this case, but Article 23 subparag. 2 of the above Act prohibits the occurrence, change, repayment, extinction, direct or indirect transfer of claims between residents and non-residents, or prohibition of becoming a party to other dispositions, and thus, Defendant 1 of this case paid KRW 595,245,00 to Defendant 2 who is a resident in the Republic of Korea for the acquisition of US$ 800,000, there is no room for its application differently.

In the end, the prosecutor's appeal is merely an independent opinion, and the party member who requires the theory of lawsuit is not a party member of the case, unlike the case, and it is not reasonable to accept the appeal because it is not appropriate.

2. As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal

The summary of the Defendant’s grounds of appeal is that the Defendant’s criminal facts and the Defendant’s criminal facts constitute a single comprehensive act connected to each other. Therefore, in the event that it is not possible to collect the value of foreign exchange, etc. acquired by the Defendant, etc. from the Defendants individually or individually, the Defendant’s collection should be conducted equally, despite the fact that it goes against justice and fairness, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Articles 22 and 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act and violated the Supreme Court precedents.

However, as shown in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, the criminal facts in the original trial of the defendant, etc. are related to the criminal facts, and therefore, the relation of the accomplice, etc. cannot be established in the criminal acts between the defendant, and the profits existing due to each crime of the defendant, etc., which is subject to confiscation or collection in this case, should be paid by the defendant 1, and the profits existing due to each crime of the defendant, etc., which is subject to confiscation or collection in this case, shall be KRW 595,245,00 in Korean won received by the defendant. In the case where the party members required for the lawsuit make a collection from the criminal who is in the relation of the accomplice, and there is no reason for the appeal to be

3. Ultimately, the appeal by the public prosecutor and the defendant 2 by the defendant is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)