A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the amount of 600 million won, calculated by multiplying the remittance amount of this case by 1.5%, was collected from the Defendant, but the remittance commission rate received by the Defendant from the crime of this case does not exceed 1.5%.

Therefore, it is illegal that the court below ordered the defendant to collect the amount of KRW 600 million.

(b) The imposition of sentence (the first instance: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, the suspension of execution for two years, and the additional collection of 600 million won);

2. Determination of legality of the calculation of the amount of collection

A. The subject matter of confiscation and collection under Article 30 of the former Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 14525, Jan. 17, 2017) refers to foreign exchange and other means of payment acquired by the offender through the pertinent act. This purport is to confiscate or collect foreign exchange, etc. acquired by the offender through a regulatory act under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act. Here, acquisition refers to the time of acquisition resulting from the pertinent criminal act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8389, May 31, 2017). Therefore, domestic payment means or foreign exchange itself received for money exchange while conducting a registered foreign exchange business, etc. is not subject to confiscation or collection under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, but is only subject to confiscation or collection under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4721, Jul. 12, 2013). Moreover, the grounds for additional collection, such as the recognition of the amount of additional collection, need not be proven strictly, but should be recognized by evidence.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2005Do9858 Decided April 7, 2006, etc.). B.

Judgment

Since the defendant, while running a foreign exchange business between the Republic of Korea and the Philippines for the payment and receipt of money, he/she has acquired a certain percentage of money from each amount as a commission, he/she shall confiscate and collect such fee

However, as evidence of fees, the defendant's investigation by the investigative agency on February 23, 2009 into Kimpo Customs: the fee shall be collected separately.