beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.22 2013노2045

외국환거래법위반등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, and fine of twenty thousand won.

The seizure of articles 1 to 1.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Permission to receive unfair methods: H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) which is the representative director of the Defendant (hereinafter “H”)

) and B.K located (hereinafter referred to as “K”)

ii) the J (hereinafter referred to as the "J") in both cases;

(2) The payment of the import price to Q, which is not a party to a transaction, constitutes a third party’s intermediate trade or ice trade, and even if not, there was no intention to commit a crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, since the Defendant was unaware of such fact and the documents submitted to the Bank of Korea were false. (2) The payment of the import price to Q, which is not a party to a transaction, was made by both J and Q, and thus, the remittance of the import price to Q, which is not a party to a transaction, to Q, does not constitute a third party’s payment, and the Defendant was confirmed to have not been subject to reporting from a bank. Therefore, the transfer to Q, which is a third party designated by the J, would have been believed to have not been subject to reporting or permission, and thus, constitutes a case where there

3) Violation of the Customs Act ( false import declaration): The Defendant did not have intention because he had known that the instant stone sent from Q was not a serious material. B) The punishment sentenced by the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment and fine of fine of KRW 20 million, confiscation, confiscation, additional collection of KRW 5,735,593,351, which was too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) With respect to the assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the Defendant exports to K a letter of non-trade and investment prohibition, a commercial invoice issued by H, a bill of lading, a bill of lading (B/L), and an estimated invoice sent by J to H, accompanied by documents, such as the cost-forma, the dypology, the stegra, and the dume for construction to K.

참조조문