beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment on the Defendant’s ground of appeal in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the respective Customs Act on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending
2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal
A. The term “documents or drawings”, which is the object of the crime regarding documents under the Criminal Act, refers to the expression of an intention or concept of a person on the material object by using letters or signs corresponding thereto, and its contents can be evidence as to matters which are meaningful in the legal or social life.
On the other hand, since the crime concerning currency is specially related to the crime concerning documents, when the crime concerning currency is established, the crime concerning documents is not established separately.
However, in a case where forged foreign currencies, paper money, or bank bills do not have the force of compulsory circulation, they do not constitute “foreign currencies, etc. which are circulated in a foreign country” as prescribed by Article 207(3) of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3487, May 14, 2004). Furthermore, in a case where such currency, etc. does not become a means of actual payment in the Republic of Korea, it does not constitute “foreign currencies, etc. circulated in the domestic country” as prescribed by Article 207(2) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3340, Jan. 10, 2003). Thus, even when exercising such currency, it does not constitute a crime of forging currency exercise as prescribed by Article 211(4) of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, in such a case, it can be deemed that the crime of uttering of the said investigation documents or the crime of uttering of the said investigation.
B. The lower court determined that the 100,000 Lbling of the instant case.