All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. Defendant A, B, and D companies (hereinafter “D”) have committed a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes Act”), the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment (hereinafter “Special Economic Crimes”), and the violation of the Foreign Trade Act on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and the lower court, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, has established a special purpose corporation in a foreign country (SPC) and remitted the imported vessel price, charterage, or transportation cost, which was released to the bank account in its name, but it was insufficient to recognize that the remittance constitutes a property flight abroad as stipulated in Article 4(1) of the Special Economic Crimes Act, or Defendant A and B had the intent to commit a crime of capital flight.

In addition, the purpose of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, which is premised on the establishment of the crime of capital flight abroad, and the purpose of foreign currency flight is not to constitute a crime of violation of the Foreign Trade Act.

Therefore, the defendant A, B, and D's violation of the Act on the Specific Economic Crimes (property concealment in a foreign country), violation of the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and violation of the Foreign Trade Act shall be acquitted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, 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, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent to commit a crime of capital flight, the Act on the Regulation of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and the establishment

B. Examining the history and content of the provisions related to the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act No. 1 of the Defendant A, B, and D’s violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act in light of the principle of interpreting penal provisions and the legal principles on blanket crimes, etc., Articles 29(1)3 and 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.