Whether incidental business directly and closely related to “payment, collection and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country” constitutes “foreign exchange business” under Article 3(1)16(e) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (affirmative)

Article 3(1)16(b) and (e) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; Article 8(1), and Article 27(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act

Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1603 Decided May 8, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 860) Supreme Court Decision 201Do1307 Decided November 28, 2013 (Gong2014Sang, 134)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016No1120 decided January 13, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3(1)16(b) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act provides that "payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country" shall be "payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country," and Article 3(1)16(e) of the same Act provides that "business prescribed by Presidential Decree as similar to the above subparagraph(b) shall be "foreign exchange business" and Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act provides that "business incidental to the business under Article 3(1)16(b) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act," "business under Article 3(1)16(e) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act," and therefore, any incidental business directly necessary and closely related to "payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country," constitutes the foreign exchange business under Article 3(1)16(e) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (see, e.g

For the following reasons, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged. In other words, insofar as a series of acts, such as preparing and transporting foreign currency KRW 1 billion, constitute foreign exchange business under Article 3(1)16(e) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which is directly necessary and closely related to “payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country,” thereby constitutes a crime of violating the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act due to unregistered foreign exchange business. Even if the Nonindicted Party had expressed his intent to take the crypization without the intention to remit the crypization, and was forcibly taken without paying the crypation, it does not affect the establishment of the instant crime.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Other grounds for appeal by the defendant are not legitimate grounds for appeal under Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)