B. Whether the securities such as the above securities are excluded from the property subject to regulation under the Domestic Property Doctrine Prevention Act

(c) Whether the value of the securities exported in violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act may be collected (negative)

D. Whether the appellate court’s judgment was unlawful, which did not explain the propriety of the grounds for appeal ex officio and rendered a judgment of the court of first instance.

B. The Act on the Prevention of Domestic Property Doctrine limits the act of causing the movement or movement of a property to an area prescribed by the same Act in order to prevent the flight of a domestic property, and there is no reason to exclude securities such as stocks of an unlisted domestic company from the property subject to the regulation of the Act on the Prevention of Domestic Property Doctrine on the ground that the said securities have been transferred abroad to a third party without compensation or should be transferred to the Republic of Korea to take the transfer procedure.

(c) Foreign exchange and other securities, etc. which are subject to confiscation or collection under Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, which are acquired by the offender through the act concerned, and which are acquired by the offender in the event of foreign exchange and securities, etc. which are acquired by the act regulated by the Foreign Exchange Control Act, or are confiscated or collected additionally, so if the offense has exported the securities, the value of the exported securities shall not be collected additionally

D. If the appellate court ex officio destroys and renders a decision of the first instance court on the grounds not included in the grounds of appeal, it is reasonable to interpret that the appellate court determines the legitimacy of the grounds of appeal in making the decision, even though it did not separately state the legitimacy of the grounds of appeal.

Since registered shares representing shareholders' rights of non-resident domestic companies can also be subject to investment that can cause capital movement between international countries, they are included in securities as stipulated in Article 4 subparagraph 7 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act. Accordingly, this constitutes securities which are elements of a violation of Articles 35 and 27 of the same Act, and export or import which is the elements of the crime of violation of Article 35 and Article 27 of the same Act, and there is no ground to see that the export or import which is the same as those of the crime of violation of the Customs Act is different from the export or import in the crime of violation of the Customs Act

In addition, according to the adopted evidence by the court below, it can be recognized that the domestic securities in Korea have been transferred to Japan for the purpose prescribed in Article 1 of the domestic capital flight prevention method, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, and the domestic capital flight prevention act limits the act of moving or moving to an area prescribed in the same law to prevent the flight of domestic property, and there is no reason to exclude the securities such as the securities of this case from the property of this case. Thus, the securities of this case shall not be deemed to have been transferred to the non-party No. 1, a third party, without compensation, or transferred to Korea to the non-party No. 1, a transfer procedure. Thus, the judgment below guilty cannot be said to have violated the law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Moreover, in this case where a fine is imposed, imposing unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that foreign exchange and other securities acquired by an offender through the act in question shall be confiscated or collected at the time of foreign exchange and other securities acquired by the offender due to the act in question. Thus, in the case of exporting securities as in this case, there is no violation of legal principles in the judgment below that did not collect the value of the exported securities (see Supreme Court Decision 79Do2168 delivered on December 11, 1979). In addition, if the appellate court reverses ex officio the judgment of the first instance on the grounds that are not included in the grounds for appeal and renders a self-determination, it is reasonable to interpret that the propriety of the grounds for appeal in making a self-determination should be determined (see Supreme Court Decision 78Do563 delivered on April 25, 1978; 8Do2837 delivered on December 27, 1983; 200Do2827 delivered on December 27, 1983).

3. The arguments are without merit, and all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)