The judgment below

Among them, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) is reversed.

In this case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime committed in a foreign country) constitutes a single comprehensive crime, and the whole export price claim amounting to KRW 3,909,854,482 constitutes a claim on which the obligation to recover is imposed in Korea under

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous facts that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the above export-price claim constitutes a claim on which the obligation to recover in Korea was imposed under Article 7 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), it is recognized that the defendant did not have an intent to repay the loan stated in this part

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or erroneous facts that found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intent to repay the loan stated in this part of the facts charged.

2. Determination

A. As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes), the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground as stated in its reasoning. In addition

1) The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are substantially the same company under the control of the defendant by H (hereinafter “H”), K (hereinafter “K”), and L (hereinafter “L”). Under the premise that L is a foreign floating company, the defendant did not bring into the Republic of Korea the export price claim amounting to KRW 3,909,854,482 as stated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the export price claim of this case”).