logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.11.03 2015고정2906
외국환거래법위반
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a national residing in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

The defendant shall report to the customs collector, in order to carry and export means of foreign payment exceeding ten thousand U.S. dollars.

On July 25, 2015, the Defendant: (a) left the country of Incheon at the port of Incheon by using the Korea Civil Aviation KE825 Part 8:40, Jul. 25, 2015; (b) the Defendant, while working as a household Dominant in Seoul, had attempted to carry and export the amount of KRW 52,650,00 (the amount equivalent to US$ 45,298, the amount exceeding US$ 10,000, and the amount exceeding US$ 41,027,00) that the Defendant requested the Chinese family members to deliver the cost of living, without filing a report thereon with the customs collector; (c) the Defendant attempted to carry and export the amount of KRW 52,650,00,00 (the amount corresponding to US$ 45,298, and the amount exceeding US$ 10,000,

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Notification of detection;

1. The record of seizure and the list of seizure (if the defendant carries and imports a means of payment exceeding ten thousand U.S. dollars, he/she did not know to the head of the customs office that he/she should report it. However, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of the defendant's act of misunderstanding that his/her act does not constitute a crime under the law and regulations shall not be punishable only when there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding." This does not mean a simple legal site, but it is generally accepted that it does not constitute a crime but it does not constitute a crime as permitted under the law and regulations in case of his/her own special circumstances, and there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3051, Sept. 29, 200). The defendant's above assertion is merely a legal site, and it is difficult to see that the defendant misleads the defendant that his/her act was not a crime, or there

arrow