In the case of a standard type (=legal type) and a concurrent or multiple-choice type, the method of comparing the seriousness of the statutory penalty;

In principle, the comparison of seriousness of a punishment shall be based on the standard of the statutory punishment, and it shall not be based on the applicable sentences or the sentence, and in comparing the seriousness of the statutory punishment, when there is a concurrent or multiple-choice type of punishment, the other punishment shall be determined on the basis of the most severe one among them.

Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Sung-hoon

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 92No3518 delivered on July 28, 1992

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

As to the Defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, recognized the fact that the defendant purchased 1,380,000 US dollars 1,840,000 which is means of foreign payment through 18 times and sold it to Hong Kong Yong-type without selling it to a foreign exchange bank, etc. (the second fact of the judgment of the court of first instance). The defendant applied Articles 35(1) and 17(1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act to this case, and exported the travel checks of US$ 200,000 which is means of payment to Hong Kong (the fact that the defendant exported the travel checks of US$ 20,000 to Hong Kong (the fact that the criminal facts of the court of first instance are 3-A, b), and applied Articles 35(1) and 27 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act to this.

However, the Foreign Exchange Control Act applied by the court below is wholly amended by Act No. 4447 of Dec. 27, 1991, and the amended Foreign Exchange Control Act from September 1, 1992, which was after the decision of the court below, is in force. The facts of the crime of the first instance as stated in Articles 31(1), 15, 31(1), 31(1), and 19 of the amended Foreign Exchange Control Act are clear. Article 35(1) of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act applied by the court below to the following facts: Article 35(1) of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act before the revision is applicable to the punishment of 10 years or less or a fine of 3 million won, but if the amount of the object of the violation exceeds three times the value of 3,000 won, the fine shall not exceed three times the value of the new juristic person after the amendment of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act, and it shall be applied concurrently to the punishment of 31,000 won or less among the new punishment of the Criminal Procedure Act.

One addition is that the punishment for the above crime and concurrent crimes in this case is more severe than that of the new law. In other words, Articles 35(1), 10(1) and 30(1) of the former Act provide that a person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, and Articles 30(1) and 9(1) of the former Act provide that a person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 50 million won, among the crimes punishable by concurrent crimes, the most serious punishment for the above unmanned transfer commercial innocence is more severe than that of the former Act. However, in principle, the severity of punishment is more severe than that of the former Act.

Therefore, without examining other grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho