Where it is found that a non-resident has replaced the Korean herb goods taken in at the time of entry into the Republic of Korea with the US dollars, etc., and without registering it, he/she intends to depart from the Republic of Korea without registering it, whether it falls under the subject of confiscation under Article

Articles subject to forfeiture under Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act mean foreign exchange and other means of foreign payment, etc. acquired by the offender through the act regulated by the same Act, which are acquired in this Act, only in cases where it has been acquired as a result of the relevant criminal act. Accordingly, the amount of KRW 16,30,000, which the Defendant received from the sale of herb drugs brought in at the time of entry, shall be changed to 198, 500 US dollars 198, 50 US$4, and 100 Hong Kong, and the method of payment for the Games prescribed by the same Act shall be acquired and held, but if it is discovered that the Defendant was in possession and intended to depart from the Republic of Korea without registration pursuant to Article 18 of the same Act and Article 28(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, it shall not be deemed to have been acquired by the above criminal act, and thus, it shall not be confiscated pursuant to Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act.

Article 18 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Article 36-2 of the same Act, Article 28 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 48 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Do2930 Decided March 9, 1982 (Special Provisions I-2(5)827, Gong680, No. 450)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court (90 High Court Decision 280)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three years and six months.

The ninety-five days of detention before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Seized 146g of opium (No. 5) shall be confiscated.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Before determining the above argument, it is reasonable to say that goods subject to confiscation under Article 36-2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act are foreign exchange or other means of payment acquired by the offender through the acts regulated by the above Act, and the above acquisition means the time when the defendant acquired them as a result of the crime in question. According to the records of this case and the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant sold herb materials brought about at the time of entry, and 16,30,000 U.S. dollars 198 (No. 1), 40 U.S. dollars 50 (No. 2), 30 U.S. dollars 30 (No. 3) and Hong Kong 100 U.S. dollars 30 (No. 4) and it cannot be found that the above provisions of Article 18 of the above Act were not applied to the above crimes under Article 28 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and it cannot be found that the above provisions of Article 36 of the Criminal Act were not applied to the above crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed by applying Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and therefore they are copied in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Among each act of holding, the points of the violation of the duty of concentration of means of foreign payment in accordance with Articles 60(1) and 20(1) of the Narcotics Act and Article 35(1) and Article 18(1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act are applicable to each act of violation of the same Act. Since the crime of violation of the same Act is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the above two crimes are concurrent crimes under Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, which are more severe punishment under Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant first visits to the mother country at the request of the person who is residing in China, and brought them into the country for this case, but there is a reason to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that erroneousness is divided, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 50 days under Article 53(1)2 and 5(1)3 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges fixed-name (Presiding Judge) Lee Hong-sung