Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act provides for forfeiture and collection of foreign exchange and other means of payment acquired by a criminal through the act in question and the meaning of "acquisition"

Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do1309 Decided September 25, 1979 (Gong1979, 12279), Supreme Court Decision 81Do2930 Decided March 9, 1982 (Gong1982, 450), Supreme Court Decision 87Do82 Decided August 9, 198 (Gong198, 1217), Supreme Court Decision 91Do907 Decided June 11, 1991 (Gong191, 1968)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

Gwangju District Court Decision 2013No76 Decided April 3, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The subject matter of confiscation and collection stipulated in Article 30 of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act refers to foreign exchange and other means of payment acquired by the offender through the pertinent act. This purport is to confiscate or collect foreign exchange, etc. acquired by the offender due to the act regulated by the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, and the above "acquisition" refers to the time the offender acquired it as a result of the pertinent criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do2930, Mar. 9, 1982, etc.).

The lower court determined that domestic means of payment or foreign exchange itself received for money exchange in running a foreign exchange business without registration is not subject to confiscation or collection under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, but can be confiscated or collected for money received as commission, and subsequently reversed the judgment of the first instance that collected the total sum of Hong Kong dollars received by the Defendant, etc. for money exchange from the Defendant, and additionally collected only 146,792,470 won out of the total sum of money received from the Defendant for money exchange.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to additional collection under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)