All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 3(1)16(b) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act provides that with respect to the Defendants’ grounds for appeal, “payment, collection, and receipt between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country” and Article 3(1)6(e) of the same Act provides that “foreign exchange business prescribed by Presidential Decree” shall be deemed to fall under “foreign exchange business”. Article 6 subparag. 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act provides that “business incidental to the business prescribed by Presidential Decree” refers to “business prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 3(1)16(b) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act and “payment, collection, and receipt of money between the Republic of Korea and a foreign country” constitutes “foreign exchange business prescribed by Presidential Decree” under Article 3(1)16(e) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1603, May 8, 2008) and Article 6 subparag. 16(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, which the Defendants did not lawfully receive money from the Plaintiff’s foreign exchange business.

Even if the defendants constitute a comprehensive crime together with other foreign exchange businesses, and it is possible to confiscate 1 billion won which has been offered to the above acts.

It is just to maintain the judgment of the first instance court to the same purport, and it is reasonable to have logical and empirical experience.