logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.09.04 2015노1807
외국환거래법위반
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of carrying out the means of payment exceeding 10,00 U.S. dollars, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was unaware of the provision that the head of the competent customs office should report.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of the person in question misleads the misunderstanding that his act was not a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding." This does not mean a simple legal site, but it is generally a crime, but in special circumstances, it is recognized that his act constitutes a crime but does not constitute a crime under the Acts and subordinate statutes, and there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding such misunderstanding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3051, Sept. 29, 200). Whether there exists such justifiable grounds shall be determined depending on whether the act was not aware of the illegality of his act by himself, if he had been able to examine or inquire about the possibility of illegality of his act with his intellectual ability, and whether the act was not recognized as a result of misunderstanding of his own ability, even if it could have been sufficiently endeavored to avoid it. The degree of efforts necessary for recognition of illegality should be determined differently depending on an individual's and social ability.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3717, Mar. 24, 2006). In light of the above legal doctrine, the health unit and the Defendant are related to the instant case.

arrow