All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and six months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. On January 20, 2007, the court below found Defendant A not guilty on the grounds of the charge of smuggling by entering the port around January 20, 2007, which is the primary facts charged to Defendant A, and found Defendant A guilty on the charge of smuggling by entering the port around May 21, 2007, which is the ancillary facts charged, and only Defendant A filed an appeal against the conviction portion, and the prosecutor did not file an appeal.

If so, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground of the facts charged (the main charge) of smuggling by entering the port around January 20, 207 is judged as not guilty on the ground of the judgment below, but the defendant is judged as not guilty on the ground of the principle of no appeal, and thus, he/she is in fact relieved of the object of trial from the object of attack and defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Thus, this court cannot decide on the part above.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act through capital transactions without filing a report shall be deemed to be established for each act of deposit transactions unless deposit transactions are made by dividing the amount of deposits.

However, since the amount of each deposit transaction in the attached list of crimes is less than the amount of capital transaction without reporting (1 billion won or 5 billion won) subject to criminal punishment and it is not subject to criminal punishment, the acquittal or acquittal by each act of deposit transaction should be sentenced.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the act of individual deposit transaction constitutes subject to criminal punishment by comprehensively covering the deposit transaction by deposit account regardless of whether the act constitutes subject to criminal punishment. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the

B. The lower court sentenced the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing.