[1] The extent of evidence submission to be indicated in the grounds for conviction

[2] The time of commencement of enforcement in the case of taking out with foreign exchange carrying

[1] Even though the court did not specifically state that a criminal facts are recognized by any part of the evidence in the court's explanation of the evidence on the criminal facts, it cannot be viewed as an illegal evidence theory if it can be acknowledged by the timely evidence.

[2] Under Article 28(1)3 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, an act of exporting means of payment, precious metals or securities without making a report or by making a false report to the effect that the act of exporting means of payment, precious metals or securities was started at the time of the act of taking out means of payment, etc. However, in a case where the defendant, who was a portable guard, tried to bring the goods into a foreign country and carried the goods out of the Republic of Korea, the defendant, who was sent the goods to the deposit, up to 4 million in Japan, was an act of closeing and fasting to the act of taking out the Republic of Korea when he was put to a deposit freight. However, with respect to the money for the money for five million won in Korea, the enforcement of the act was commenced only when he was set to the portable security guard box or carried the goods in his possession, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have waited for the arrest of the goods at the airport without moving to the portable security guard.

[1] Article 323 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 17 and 28 (1) 3 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 73Do2216 delivered on November 13, 1973, Supreme Court Decision 83Do995 delivered on July 12, 1983 (Gong1983, 1218)/ [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do2461 delivered on November 26, 199 (Gong200Sang, 107)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al.

Busan High Court Decision 2000No384 delivered on September 7, 2000

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. As to the mistake of facts

The court below's fact-finding and judgment are justified, and there is no error in law as to the summary of evidence or in law as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and there is no error in finding a fact-finding by abusing the rules of evidence or the principle of free evaluation of evidence without proper examination. The court below's fact-finding and judgment can be sufficiently recognized in light of the records, and there is no error in finding a fact-finding by abusing the rules of evidence or the principle of free evaluation of evidence without proper examination.

2. As to foreign exchange transactions

In addition, in the court of first instance, the defendant recognized that foreign exchange transactions conducted without reference to the basic exchange exchange rate as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the record of seizure, which is the object of exchange, can be reinforced evidence, and it does not necessarily mean that the basic exchange rate should be specified in the facts constituting the crime at the time. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act or by admitting facts without evidence.

3. As to the export of foreign exchange

Examining the adopted evidence of the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the defendant can be sufficiently recognized that he had been able to put in and take out to a foreign country a deposit freight of 5 million U.S. 5 million U.S. 4 million U.S. c. c., and that the defendant had failed to report or made a false report, and that the export of means of payment, precious metals, or securities has started its implementation when the act of closeing and pushing out to the act of taking out the means of payment, etc. In order to depart from Korea. According to the records, as long as the defendant was put to a deposit box of 5 million U.S. c. c. Kim in order to leave Japan with a seat on the flight slip, the defendant was waiting to take off the above part within 4 million U.S. c. c. c. 5 million U. c. s. c. c. c., the defendant had no choice but to c. s. c. 4 millions.

Despite the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below was also the commencement of the enforcement of the above 4 million Won, and it was found guilty of this part of the crime. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the timing of commencement of export of foreign exchange, etc. under Article 28 (1) 3 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall no longer be maintained, and as long as there is a ground to reverse the crime of foreign exchange export among the judgment below, the remaining crimes which constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act shall be reversed together, and the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)