Whether the act of purchasing foreign currency from amba merchants constitutes a violation of Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act (affirmative)

If US dollars have been purchased from cancer merchants without using the rate of customer trade for foreign exchange banks as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy, it would have committed an act in violation of Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act at the time of the transaction.

Article 5(4) and Article 5(3) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do488 Delivered on March 22, 1983

Defendant 1 and three others

All of the defendants

Attorney Long-term

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No1084 delivered on June 23, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendant's private defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that residents and non-residents shall not engage in transactions which are not based on the basic exchange rate, foreign exchange rate, arbitrated exchange rate, and other exchange rates and service fees determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy pursuant to paragraph (3) of the same Article. Article 1-4 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act provides that the foreign exchange trading rate shall be divided into the foreign exchange bank, the concentration rate of the Bank of Korea and the customer trading rate for foreign exchange banks. As such, the court below's decision to the same effect is just and justified, and the decision of the court below to the same effect that if they purchased US dollars from cancer merchants without using the rate of customer trading for foreign exchange banks as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy, they violated this Article at the time of the transaction, and it is clear that the United States and travelers' checks seized by the defendants are foreign exchange due to the current single exchange rate system, and it is not appropriate that the Supreme Court's decision cited by the defendants is different from the case in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)