1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A concerning gambling (the punishment penalty and fine).

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) In order to constitute “export” under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, there must be an act of causing the same kind in the “export” under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; and (b) if it is interpreted that taking out without the act of causing it constitutes “export” as in the lower judgment, it is unconstitutional that it infringes on the right to freely dispose of property rights, which are the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

(2) Even if a crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act is established, money equivalent to 10,00 U.S. dollars per departurer must be deducted for each departurer.

(3) There is no evidence of reinforcement on USD 200,00 directly possessed by the Defendant.

B) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

② The crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of property abroad) are double punishment.

(3) The Defendant had no awareness of the criminal intent to escape because he/she again carried out the property from the time of release to the Republic of Korea.

④ Since there was no conspiracy between the Defendant and another departurer, the Defendant cannot be held liable for the part that another departurer moved, and there is no evidence to reinforce the portion of USD 200,000 that the Defendant led.

(2) Each overseas property of KRW 40 million and KRW 200 million is avoided. ① The Defendant’s act does not constitute “violation of Acts and subordinate statutes” insofar as the Defendant did not commit a violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act against the Defendant.

(2) The defendant did not have "transfer overseas property" and had no awareness of the criminal intent to escape.

C) misunderstanding the legal principles on the re-violation of breach of trust K. K.