[1] The scope of application of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act

[2] In a case where a resident pays a transaction price to a resident who is not a party to the transaction for the settlement between a resident and a nonresident, or receives a transaction price from a resident who is not a party, whether the transaction is subject to permission under Article 18 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act

[3] The scope of application of Article 7-20 subparagraph 3 of the former Foreign Exchange Management Regulations

[4] Korean nationals' overseas crimes as the scope of application of the Criminal Code

[1] The application of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Law No. 5550 of September 16, 1998) includes not only transactions which merely involve the transfer of foreign exchange but also transactions which can be denominated or paid in Korean currency as long as they are in a claim and debt relationship between residents and nonresidents.

[2] Where a resident pays a transaction price to a resident who is not a party to the transaction for the settlement between a resident and a nonresident, or receives a transaction price from a resident who is not a party to the transaction, the transaction is subject to permission under Article 18 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Law No. 550 of September 16, 1998)

[3] According to Article 7-20 subparagraph 3 of the former Foreign Exchange Management Act, where a defendant intends to make payment, etc. as domestic means of payment for the settlement of a transaction with a resident and a nonresident, the case of payment, etc. as a means of domestic payment as a result of a transaction denominated in domestic currency between a resident and a nonresident does not require permission or report. However, such provision does not allow or report only when such transaction has been made in Korea, but it is excluded from the scope of permission or report, and the former Foreign Exchange Management Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, Law No. 550 of September 16, 1998) stipulates that the defendant who received instructions from the non-indicted person who conducts a foreign exchange business from a bank established in Korea in the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea, to deposit money in the territory of the Republic of Korea in the territory of the Republic of Korea.

[4] Article 3 of the Criminal Code provides that "This Act shall apply to a national who commits a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Korea" and the principle of belonging to the scope of the application of the Criminal Code shall apply to such a national. Even if the entry of a casino in the Republic of the Philippines is permitted, Article 3 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea shall apply to a defendant who commits a gambling in the Republic of the Philippines.

[1] Article 2 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Law No. 550 of September 16, 1998) (see Article 2 of the current Foreign Exchange Control Act) / [2] Articles 18 and 30 (1) 8 (see Article 28 (1) 2 of the current Foreign Exchange Control Act) of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (repealed by Article 3 of the Addenda to the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Law No. 5550 of September 16, 1998), Article 27 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Law No. 16207 of March 30, 199) / [3] Article 7-20 subparagraph 3 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act, Article 18 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (repealed by Article 550 of the Addenda to the Foreign Exchange Control Act) of the Criminal Act

[4] Supreme Court Decision 86Do403 delivered on June 24, 1986 (Gong1986, 966)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Soh Jae-il

Seoul District Court Decision 98No1329 delivered on July 15, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact

Examining the adopted evidence of the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the defendant, without the permission of the Minister of Finance and Economy, transferred Korean currency to the bank account of our country where the non-indicted, who carried on the money exchange business, was known to have been remitted at a casino in the Republic of Korea to acquire the chips used for gambling in the country of the Philippines, and the non-indicted, was willing to borrow U.S. dollars from the above non-indicted, and deposited Korean currency with the bank account of our country where the non-indicted was known to have been remitted to the non-indicted, and then the defendant received a deposit in Korean currency from the domestic person who was instructed by the non-indicted in the bank account in our country of our country as the price of solitary chips from the above casino to the bank account of our country at that time. Thus, there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principles

The application of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act before it is repealed by the Foreign Exchange Control Act shall include not only a transaction accompanied by the transfer of foreign exchange, but also a transaction which can be denominated or paid in Korean currency as long as it is opened in a claim and debt relationship between the resident and the non-resident, and it shall be applicable to the case where the resident pays the transaction price to the resident who is not the party to the transaction, or receives the transaction price from the resident who is not the party to the transaction, even if the resident receives the transaction price from the non-party

In addition, according to Article 7-20 subparagraph 3 of the former Foreign Exchange Management Regulations prior to substitution by the foreign exchange transaction regulations, where a person intends to make payment, etc. as means of domestic payment for the settlement of a transaction with a resident or a nonresident, he/she does not require permission or report as to the transaction indicated in domestic currency between a resident and a nonresident. However, the same provision does not require permission or report only when such transaction is made in the Republic of Korea, but it does not include the nature that can be inferred even in the case of the transaction of this case as provided for in the Foreign Exchange Management Act as permission or report.

The court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is just in accordance with the above purport, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

2. As to habitual gambling

Examining the adopted evidence of the judgment below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant habitually gambling as stated in its judgment, while Article 3 of the Criminal Act provides that the principle of belonging to the scope of the application of the Criminal Act is applicable to the Korean nationals who committed crimes outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. Even if the entry of the casino is permitted in the Republic of Korea, Article 3 of the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea is naturally applicable to the defendant pursuant to Article 3 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do403, Jun. 24, 1986). Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this premise that there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)