Whether Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is violated in case where a person purchases U.S. dollars from a merchant of ambried, and deposits them in the

If a resident purchases U.S. dollars from a cancer merchant, the foreign exchange that he purchased is deposited in a bank, but this constitutes a transaction which is not based on the conversion rate of the basic exchange rate and the handling fee determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy under Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jin-type

Seoul High Court Decision 78No185 delivered on December 27, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The point of illegal refund of customs duties;

In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below is acceptable, and there is no error such as the theory of litigation in the process of evidence preparation.

The theory of the theory is raising a theory on the admissibility of evidence of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant prepared by the prosecutor, but it is clear in the record that the defendant recognizes the authenticity of the authenticity and statement in the examination of evidence in the first instance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant erred in adopting it as evidence.

2. Forgery of documents and the holding of such events;

On the basis of the record, there is no evidence to find that the defendant has the authority to prepare each order of this case, so there is no theory of this issue.

3. Points of violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that residents and non-residents shall not engage in transactions which are not based on the basic exchange rate, foreign exchange rate, arbitrated exchange rate, or other conversion rate and service fees as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to paragraph (3) of this Article. Thus, if they purchased US dollars from cancer keepers without the basic exchange rate and service fees as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy, they shall be deemed to have committed an act in violation of this Article at the time of the transaction (Article 35 of the same Act). Thus, even if the defendant deposited foreign exchange after the purchase of foreign exchange, even if he deposited it with the bank, it shall be deemed that there is no complaint at the time of the establishment of the above crime. Accordingly, the court below's decision that concluded the establishment of the

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)