Defendant

Defendant

Disqualifications

Law Firm North East-dong Law Firm

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Madan2024 decided September 19, 2007

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

50 days of detention before the imposition of judgment after filing an appeal shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles

Of the seized articles of this case, 5 copies of the cashier's checks issued at the new bank dong branch (No. 8), 10,000 won cashier's checks issued at the Bank of Korea Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do do Do Do Do Do Do Do do Do do Do Do Do Do 10,000 (No. 10), one cashier's checks issued at the Bank Do Do Do Do Do Korean Do Do Do Do do Do Do do Do do Do Do Do 11, two copies of the cashier's checks issued at the Bank Do Do Do Do Korean Do Do Do Do Korean Do Do 12, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is no violation of the confiscation of the above Do 1500,0,00.

B. The assertion of unfair sentencing

The sentence of the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

As to the defendant's argument that the seized article of this case is not subject to confiscation, the crime of this case has been paid to the non-resident who is a party to the transaction concerned without reporting that the defendant is a resident who is not a party to the transaction concerned, and the seized article of this case is seized to pay it to the non-resident without reporting even according to the defendant's statement. Thus, the seized article of this case constitutes the act of providing it to the non-resident who is not a party to the transaction, which is not a party to the transaction, without reporting. Thus, it shall be subject to confiscation under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's argument

B. Determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the following circumstances: (a) the instant crime was committed by the Defendant carrying out money of more than 1.3 billion won, and the quality of the crime is not good; (b) the Defendant did not disclose the source or place of sending money out of the money; (c) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (d) other circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the circumstances after the crime was committed, the lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal of this case is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and 50 days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of judgment after filing an appeal under Article 57 of the Criminal Act shall be included in the punishment of the court below. However, pursuant to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, the court below ex officio decided to revise "1. Confiscation: Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act" as adding "Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act" to the applicable column of the judgment of the court below (the court below did not confiscate evidence 1 through 15 which was seized by the defendant, but it did not apply to evidence 1 or

Judges Prehovah Sung (Presiding Judge)