The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A and B and Defendant C shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

A.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted Defendant C on the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act regarding the violation of the foregoing Act, and acquitted Defendant A on the violation of the foreign exchange transaction law due to the deposit and withdrawal as stated in the attached Table (6) of the lower judgment regarding the account of the Japanese bank in the instant facts charged. However, the lower court convicted Defendant A on the violation of the foreign exchange transaction law, which is a single crime related to the aforementioned facts charged, and did not separately pronounced Defendant C on the part of the disposition.

Defendants appealed from the guilty portion of the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts and illegality in sentencing, and the prosecutor did not appeal.

Therefore, among the judgment below on Defendant C, the part which acquitted Defendant C was separated and finalized as it is.

In addition, the part of the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A of the reasons for the appeal is reversed to this court in accordance with the indivisible principle of appeal, but that part is already excluded from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and is de facto relieved from the object of attack and defense, and thus, it cannot be determined by this court as well (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010). Ultimately, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part that the court below found guilty.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The grounds for appeal by Defendant A (1) are as follows: (a) the Defendant, among the facts charged in the instant case, committed only the part of Articles 3-B and 3-B of the facts charged in the lower judgment; (b) the previous part of the facts charged in each of the crimes in paragraph (2) that the Defendant entered Korea on March 5, 2010, entering Korea, did not have conspired or participated in illegal remittance; (c) since the Defendant managed the borrowed name account that was traded thereafter, the Defendant was not recruited or participated in the crime; and (d) the Defendant did not have committed each of the crimes in subparagraph 3-A, the lower court did not have committed each of the above crimes by the Defendant.