Whether a resident is liable to report under Article 16 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act in cases where he/she directly pays for an ordinary transaction in a foreign country after having a means of foreign payment, such as a foreign currency of 10,000 U.S. dollars or less (negative)

Article 16 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and Article 5-11(1)4 of the Regulations on Foreign Exchange Transactions

Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8435 Decided September 28, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1863) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7428 Decided October 26, 2006, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9823 Decided February 23, 2007

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-gil

Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8435 Decided April 13, 2007

Busan District Court Decision 2007No1245 Decided December 14, 2007

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

Each ground of appeal is examined.

1. As to the defendant's appeal

A. Examining the adopted evidence by the court of first instance cited by the court below in the records, the court below's decision that found all of the crimes committed in violation of the Customs Act as stated in the judgment is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the Customs Act

B. In this case where the defendant was sentenced to a fine, the reason that the sentencing of the court below is excessive is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor's appeal

A. Even if a resident departs from a foreign country with a foreign means of payment not exceeding US$10,00 and directly pays a price therefor to a foreign country without going through a foreign exchange agency, since Article 5-11(1)4 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Regulations provides that “if a resident pays a price for a transaction recognized as a foreign means of payment by a resident, which is possessed in a foreign country, directly in a foreign country.” Thus, there is no obligation to report under Article 16 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do8435, Sept. 28, 2006; 2004Do7428, Oct. 28, 2006).

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision that found the defendant not guilty of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act of March 13, 2006 is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and in the case of ordinary transactions for which a resident purchases goods from a foreign country for smuggling purposes as alleged in the grounds of appeal, the ground of appeal that the resident is not obligated to report it pursuant to Article 4-1 (2)

B. The prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below, but did not submit the grounds of appeal as to the guilty portion of the judgment below.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)