A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of ten thousand won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a resident of the Republic of Korea who resides in the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government apartment B apartment C and intends to carry and export means of foreign payment exceeding 10,00 U.S. dollars, shall report

On April 19, 2018, the Defendant used D Part at a passenger terminal of Incheon International Airport located in Jung-gu Incheon International Airport, Jung-gu, Incheon on April 19, 2018.

In order to purchase virtual currency (non-tcoin) at the time of departure from the Republic of Korea, US$ 100 2,800 (Korean currency KRW 298,620,000, US$ 287,95,000, US$ 10,000) was not reported and exported to the Republic of Korea.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Voluntary submitted books, records of seizure, and list of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (survey and report on exchange rate and review of the procedures for reporting on foreign exchange to the Incheon Airport);

1. Travelers' records of entry and departure;

1. Foreign exchange account statement;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel in foreign currency

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant, in exchange at a bank prior to the day before the day of the crime, made a false statement that he purchased the goods for the purpose of holding a bitco-investment without disclosing the purpose of the investment. The Defendant prepared a receipt along with the exchanged U.S. dollars (hereinafter “foreign exchange”) and attempted to depart from the Republic of Korea after filing a customs report, but attempted to depart from the Republic of Korea after the customs report, but it was discovered that he had no intention to commit the instant crime, she had no intention to commit the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. In a case where the Defendant denies a criminal intent, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intention given the nature of an object by means of proving indirect facts, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance with the intent should be based on normal empirical rule, based on a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis power (see Supreme Court Decision 9 April 9, 2015).