Defendant 1’s imprisonment with prison labor and fine of KRW 238,00,000, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s imprisonment with prison labor and fine of KRW 132,20,000, Defendant 4’s imprisonment with prison labor and fine of KRW 105,80,000, Defendant 5’s imprisonment with prison labor and fine of KRW 3 years and fine of KRW 9,500,00, and Defendant 5’s imprisonment with prison labor and KRW 20,70,000, respectively.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined to the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 250,000 into one day.

Of the detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 170 days for the defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5, 160 days for the defendant 4, 165 days for the defendant 6, and 95 days for the defendant 6 shall be included in the above imprisonment.

However, with respect to Defendant 5, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The sum totaling KRW 237,850,830 from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 and 3 KRW 132,139,350, respectively, shall be collected from Defendant 4, and KRW 9,438,524 from Defendant 5 to Defendant 6 KRW 39,486,045 shall be collected respectively.

Each order shall be issued to the Defendants for the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

2. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsels are as follows.

1) The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendants 1, 5 and their defense counsel is as follows: first, the court below decided that the suspect interrogation protocol of each case against the defendants 1 and some of the defendants (the original court) was presented as evidence of conviction against the defendant 1 and the defendant 1, but the defendant 1 et al. led to the result of the investigation under the influence of fear by attending the prosecutor's office at the time of the police investigation and investigating the case at the time of interrogation. Thus, each suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecutor's interrogation protocol prepared in the speed of fear of fear of interrogation is not voluntary, and even though the contents of each suspect interrogation protocol alone do not have credibility because it is not clear about the source and amount of this case's funds and the distribution relation of gold leader, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the defendant 1 was guilty of this case on the basis of these evidence and affected the conclusion of the judgment, and second, the court below's decision that the defendant's punishment is too unfair.

2) The summary of the reasons for the defendants 2, 3, 4 and their defense counsels were as follows: first, the defendant did not participate in the act of smuggling in the instant case, and the court below found the defendants and relevant witnesses guilty of each of the facts charged in the instant case by forcing them to make a confession by adviser, etc., by the police and the prosecutor's office, based on the evidence that has not been proven as false evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing facts without any evidence; second, the judgment of the court below against the defendants is too unreasonable.

3) The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 6 and his defense counsel is as follows: First, even though the Defendant did not have committed the facts charged against the Defendant, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged against the Defendant only by the evidence which was fabricated without credibility by the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence; second, the sentencing of the sentence imposed by the court below against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. 1) Therefore, we first examine the reasons for appeal of mistake of facts by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (the first point of this case), and examine the above Defendants and the defendants (except Defendant 5) in the court below's interrogation protocol as to the above Defendants, etc. which led to the confession of each crime of this case, in light of the one-day trial record, it can be recognized that all of the above interrogation protocol can be admitted as evidence of this case because there is no coercion or other misunderstanding to lose its authenticity. Further, considering the evidence duly admitted by the court below in light of the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above Defendants committed each offense of this case of this case at the time of this case at the time of the above interrogation of evidence, and that the above Defendants were guilty as Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the time of this case's inquiry by the court below, and that there is no error of law regarding the fact that the above Defendants were sent to the court below' 1, 2, and that there is no evidence of this case of this case's inquiry.

2) We examine the reasoning of the Defendant 6’s assertion of mistake of facts (first,), and the evidence of Defendant 6’s conviction against Defendant 1 as evidence of guilt in the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of Defendant 1 (Chapter 316 through 763 of the investigation record). Defendant 1 stated in the prosecutor’s office that the prosecutor obtained 12 million U.N. and 7.5 million U.N. from Defendant 6 to 7.5 million U.S. in this case, the prosecutor’s office imported this case’s abduction.

위 피의자신문조서는 위에서 살핀바와 같이 피고인 6에 대한 이사건 증거로 하는 데에는 적법한 증거자료이나, 과연 피고인 1이 원심이래 환송전후의 당심법정에 이르기까지 검찰에서의 진술은 착오에 의한 허위진술이라고 주장하고 있는데 이를 가지고 피고인 6을 유죄로 인정하기에 넉넉한 증거이냐의 점에 대하여 살피건대, 일건기록에 의하면 원심증인 공소외 3은 피고인 6이 증인과 함께 1978. 6. 초순경 광주에서 뱃사람 준다고 돈 300만원을 갖고 여수에 갔다고 증언하고 있고, 피고인 6은 원심 법정과 검찰에서 공소외 4의 부탁으로 금괴 7개를 팔아 주었다고 진술하면서 그 날짜가 이사건 금괴강취사건이 있은 다음날이라는등 분명치 아니한데, 동 피고인으로부터 금괴를 샀다는 원심증인 공소외 5의 증언에 의하면 1978. 6. 중순경 금괴를 산 것이라고 진술하면서 피고인으로부터 1978. 6. 28.경 샀다고 말하여 팔라는 부탁을 받았다고 진술하고 있으며, 또한 원심상피고인 공소외 2가 피고인 6의 조카인데 동 피고인의 심부름으로 상피고인 1의 집에 갔다가 이사건 밀수관계를 알고, 원심상피고인 공소외 6등에게 그 정보를 제공함으로써 이들이 이건 금괴 1뭉치(48개)를 강취한 다음, 상피고인 1에게 이건 밀수관계를 고발한다고 위협, 피고인 1로부터 250만원, 피고인 6으로부터 120만원을 각 갈취한 사실등을 인정할 수 있는바, 이러한 일련의 사실들을 종합하여 볼때, 피고인 1에 대한 피의자신문조서의 진술내용을 신빙성이 없다하여 쉽사리 배척할 수는 없다 할 것이다. 따라서 피고인 6에 대한 이사건 공소범죄 사실은 위 피의자신문조서의 진술기재와 원심판결 거시의 여러증거들(환송후 당심에서 적법하게 조사를 마친)을 기록에 비추어 종합 검토하여 보면 충분히 인정할 수 있고, 기록을 살펴 보아도 달리 논지가 지적하는 바와 같은 위법이 없으므로 이점 동 피고인의 항소논지 역시 받아들일 수 없다.

4. Following the judgment on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by the public prosecutor and the defendants, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing, the court below, according to the judgment of the court below, as to each of the instant gold bars brought by the defendants, the value of which should not be collected from the defendants in addition to the collection of the value thereof, and the equivalent value should not be collected from the defendants for consumption and confiscation. However, the object of confiscation or collection in Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is "foreign exchange transaction" and "foreign exchange," and the purpose of this case is to confiscate or collect foreign exchange, etc. acquired by the defendants due to the acts regulated by the Foreign Exchange Control Act. Thus, if the act of exporting foreign currency is prohibited, foreign exchange acquired by itself in the case of the above act of exporting foreign currency as in this case, and it cannot be seen that there are excessive grounds for the judgment below to have changed its age to the effect of the defendants' imposition of punishment by purchasing the exported gold bullion and its equivalent value to those of this case which were brought in by the public prosecutor, and there are no reasonable grounds for confiscation or confiscation.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, party members reverse all parts of the judgment below and render a decision again as follows.

5. The criminal facts and evidence related to the defendants who are admitted as a party member shall be exempted from 2,516,940 won and defense tax amounting to 21,30,000 won and 314,617 won (the last part of the facts charged against the defendants) from among the criminal facts against the defendants 5 including the pertinent duty 1,887,704 won and defense tax amounting to 15,997,50 won with 10,000 won at the market price of 375,000 won and 235,962 won from among the criminal facts against the defendants 5 (refer to the summary of the judgment of the court below that calculated customs duties, defense tax, etc. as 500,000 cubic meters as 10,000 won and 314,617,000 won after remand from the court of first instance, the suspect examination committee of the defendant and the defendant 1,67,710,197,17 and 962.

법률에 비추건대, 피고인들의 판시소위중 피고인 1, 2, 6의 판시 제1의 (가)항, 피고인 1, 4의 판시 제2의 (가)항, 피고인 5의 판시 제5항, 피고인 6의 판시 제13의 (가), (다)항의 각 일화밀수출의 점은 각 외국환관리법 제35조 , 제27조 , 형법 제30조 에 피고인 1, 2, 3의 판시 제1의 (나)항 피고인 1, 4의 판시 제2의 (나)항중 각 관세포탈의 점은 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 제6조 제2항 제1호 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 에, 위 항들중 각 방위세 포탈의 점은 방위세법 제13조 제1항 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 에 피고인 5의 판시 제5항, 피고인 6의 판시 제13의 (나), (라)항중 각 관세포탈의 점은 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 제6조 제2항 제2호 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 에, 위 항들 각 방위세포탈의 점은 방위세법 제13조 제1항 , 관세법 제180조 제1항 , 형법 제30조 에 각 해당하는바, 피고인들에 대한 각 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반죄와 방위세법위반죄는 1개의 행위가 수개의 죄에 해당하는 경우이므로 형법 제40조 에 의하여 중한 죄인 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반죄에 정한 형으로 각 처벌하기로 하고, 피고인들에 대한 각 외국환관리법의 위반죄에 대하여는 그 소정형중 징역형을 피고인 1, 2, 3, 4에 대한 각 특정범죄가중처벌등에 과한 법률위반죄에 대하여는 그 소정형중 유기징역형을 각 선고하기로 하고, 피고인들의 위 각죄는 모두 형법 제37조 전단의 경합범이므로 같은법 제38조 제1항 제2호 , 제50조 에 의하여 그 형과 죄질 및 법정이 중한 것으로서, 피고인 1에 대하여는 판시 제1(나)항의 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반죄에 피고인 6에 대하여는 판시 제13(나)항의 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반죄에 피고인 2, 3, 4, 5에 대하여는 각 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률위반죄에 정한 형에 각 경합범가중을 하고, 피고인들에게는 각 그 정상에 참작할만한 사유가 있으므로 형법 제53조 , 제55조 제1항 제3호 에 의하여 각 작량강경을 한 형기범위내에서, 그리고 피고인들에 대하여는 특정범죄가중처벌등에 관한 법률 제6조 제3항 에 의하여 각 벌금형을 병과하기로 하여, 피고인 1을 징역 6년과 벌금 238,000,000원에 피고인 2, 3을 각 징역 5년과 벌금 132,200,000원에, 피고인 4를 징역 5년과 벌금 105,800,000원에 피고인 5를 징역 3년과 벌금 9,500,000원에 피고인 6을 징역 2년 6월과 벌금 20,770,000원에 각 처하고, 피고인들이 위 벌금을 납입하지 아니할 경우에는 형법 제70조 , 제69조 제2항 에 의하여 금 250,000원을 1일로 환산한 기간 피고인들을 노역장에 각 유치하고, 형법 제57조 에 의하여 원심판결선고전의 구금일수중 피고인 1에 대하여는 170일을, 피고인 2, 3, 5에 대하여는 160일씩을, 피고인 4에 대하여는 165일을, 피고인 6에 대하여는 95일을 피고인들의 위 징역형에 각 산입한다, 다만 피고인 5에 대하여는 초범으로서 부녀자인 점등 그 정상에 참작할 만한 사유가 있으므로 형법 제62조 에 의하여 이 판결확정일로부터 5년간 위 징역형의 집행을 유예하기로 하고, 피고인들이 밀수입한 판시 금괴등은 피고인들이 소유 또는 점유하던 범칙물건으로서 관세법 제180조 제1항 후단에 의하여 이를 몰수하여야 할 것이나, 이미 소비하여 몰수할 수 없으므로 같은법 제198조 제1항 에 의하여 위 물품등의 범칙당시의 국내 도매가격상당액으로서 피고인 1로부터 금 237,850,830원을, 피고인 2, 3으로부터 각 금 132,139,350원을 피고인 4로부터 금 105,711,480원을, 피고인 5로부터 금 9,438,524원을, 피고인 6으로부터 금 39,486,045원을 각 추징하고, 형사소송법 제334조 에 의하여 피고인들에 대하여 위 벌금상당액의 가납을 각 명한다.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the same reasons above.

Judges Yoon Jin-soon (Presiding Judge)