With respect to the smuggling, it will be subject to the Ad hoc Measures Act relating to gold.

As to the smuggling of gold, it will be subject to the Act on Temporary Measures (Abolition) related to gold.

Article 5(1) of the Ad Hoc Act, Article 6 of the Ad Hoc Act (Abolition)

Supreme Court Decision 61 Form,400 Delivered on December 14, 1961

Defendant

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 69No424 delivered on September 25, 1969, Seoul High Court Decision 69No424 delivered on September 25, 1969

We reverse the original judgment.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the defendant's defense counsel's grounds for appeal.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance where the judgment of the court below is maintained, the court below decided that the defendant's gold import permission of the competent Minister and the import of gold without the license of the head of the customs office shall be set at 34 gold bars (one height per unit), the cost of 18,139,680 won from the nearest area of the day to the nearest area, and they shall be put into several rings, and they shall be the same as they did not carry at any time after deducting them from the above, and they shall enter the same place at the east of Japan on December 1, 1968, and shall again arrive at the east of the same day on the 11st day of the same month, and shall be sentenced to 6th of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 16 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes shall be sentenced to 6th of the Act.

However, the court below's decision on the application of the law in the original judgment must be subject to the application of the Act on Temporary Measures concerning Gold, and the Customs Act is not applicable to the case of party members (Law No. 618, Dec. 14, 1961). Thus, the court below's decision on this case's application of the law cannot be justified. Thus, the appeal is justified.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act without an explanation of the remaining grounds for appeal.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court