[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that USD 1 million and USD 100,000 have been included in the abolition which is commonly used in a foreign country under Article 207 (3) of the Criminal Code on the ground that it could be misunderstood that the abolition of USD 1,000 and USD 1,000 had been able to have been able to have been able

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which held that USD 1,00,000, U.S., which was manufactured and sold as a variety of tourist souvenirs without any deficit published in the U.S. and was issued and distributed among banks in the past, is not issued yet, but can be mistaken that USD 100,000,000, U.S., which was held by the monetary collector or repact, has been forced from the perspective of the general public, and thus, it can be mistaken that the money collector or repact has been forced to use in a foreign country under Article 207(3) of the Criminal Act

The court below found that the defendant, in collusion with non-indicted 1 on September 6, 2001, received USD 6,600,000 ($7,300,000) from non-indicted 2 and acquired it with the knowledge that the total of USD 6,600,000 ($7,300,000) was forged and has been forged and has been acquired for the purpose of exercising the right. In light of the fact that the defendant's "foreign geographical closure" under Article 207 (3) of the Criminal Act means the foreign geographical closure in a foreign country with forced use, and as a major legal interest in the crime of the public credit and transaction safety in currency in a foreign country due to the development of distribution transactions, a foreign temporary closure in a foreign country used in a foreign country is presumed to have been acquired for the purpose of exercising the right of compulsory use in a foreign country as well as for the foreign country's actual use in a foreign country.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 207(3) of the Criminal Act provides that "any person who forges or alters a foreign coin, paper money, or bank note which is current in a foreign country for the purpose of uttering shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years." Here, the term "passing in a foreign country" refers to the compulsory use in that foreign country. Thus, a paper which does not have compulsory use in a foreign country, i.e., non-use in a foreign country, even though it is likely to be mistaken for common use from the perspective of ordinary people, does not constitute a paper paper of a foreign country as provided in Article 207(3) of the Criminal Act, and if it is included in a paper paper that is current in a foreign country as provided in Article 207(3) of the Criminal Act, it is not permissible to apply it by analogy or expanded interpretation beyond the scope of the possible meaning of the above punishment provision to the extent that it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

According to the facts found by the court below based on the employment evidence, US$1,00,000 is only manufactured and sold as a variety of souvenirs for tourism without being published in the United States. Thus, it cannot be said that US dollars 100,000 has been published and distributed among banks in the United States until 1934, and thereafter, the currency collection price or reinsurance has been held by banks. Thus, it is determined whether US$ 100,000 has been subject to compulsory circulation at the time of issuance in the United States of America, and whether there was a measure to abolish the past force if forced circulation was given.

Therefore, the court below should have judged whether the defendant acquired them with the knowledge that the above US dollars 1,00,000 and USD 1,000 were actually used in the United States. Furthermore, the court below should have judged that the above US dollars 1,00,000 and USD 1,000,000 were included in the bloss which is commonly used in a foreign country under Article 207 (3) of the Criminal Act and sentenced the defendant guilty on the ground that it could be mistaken for the above US dollars 1,000 and USD 1,000 to be used for the purpose of exercising the right of use as stated in the above facts charged. However, the court below should have judged that the above US dollars 1,00,000 and USD 1,000 were included in the bloss which has been used in a foreign country under Article 207 (3) of the Criminal Act from the perspective of ordinary people. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the principle of

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)