The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment of two years, Defendant B's imprisonment of one year and six months, and Defendant corporation.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles as follows: (a) Defendant A and C1 were in violation of the Foreign Trade Act; (b) the amount equivalent to the letter of credit (360 million won) remitted to the Chinese exporter to the Chinese exporter; (c) the payment date of the letter of credit and the Defendant A received the said money; (d) Defendant A had committed the instant act due to the management difficulties of the F he operated; and (e) Defendant A used the said money as his own borrowed money or living expenses; and (c) Defendant A used the money received from the above victims as its own borrowed money or living expenses, etc., it is difficult to view that Defendant A was planning to immediately bring them into the Republic of Korea without using it from the beginning. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that Defendant A had "the purpose of foreignization" under Article 43 of the Foreign Trade Act. Thus, it is unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles that found Defendant A and QA guilty of the violation of the Foreign Trade Act against Defendant A and C by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against Defendant B (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 43 of the Foreign Trade Act provides that “A trader shall not manipulate the export or import price of goods, etc. for the purpose of foreign currency flight.” Examining together with the legislative intent of the Foreign Trade Act to establish a fair trade order and the language and text of the said provision, “foreign currency flight” means the ownership and management relationship of foreign currency, and the source of foreign currency, regardless of the ownership and management relationship.