A. Whether it constitutes a violation of Article 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act in case where a resident disposes of foreign currency claims against a nonresident without collecting them, by the method of prompt redemption (affirmative)

B. In the case of paragraph (1), whether a violation of Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act is separately constituted (affirmative)

A. Although the defendant acquired foreign currency claims from the non-resident Gap, he had Gap take charge of the foreign currency claims on behalf of the defendant, without having received the US dollars in reality, but sold the US dollars in Korea by the prompt method of substitution by the prompt method, and then disposed of it by the method of transferring the US dollars to the defendant's designated person or his own account, it is obvious that the amount of payment of the US dollars by the above method of substitution does not correspond to the normal method of settlement of the receipt outside trade under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, so even if the defendant supplied the US dollars to the non-resident designated by the defendant, it cannot be recognized that the foreign currency claims have been recovered under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and unless there is no evidence to support the collection of the foreign currency claims by the normal method of settlement outside trade, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty by applying Articles 35 and 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

B. The act of paying U.S. dollars in the U.S. and receiving Korean currency from a resident in the Republic of Korea is against Article 22 subparagraph 1 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, which constitutes a violation separate from the violation of Article 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act.

(a) Article 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act; Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Foreign Exchange Control Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Advisor et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 84No1173 delivered on June 30, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

With respect to the grounds of appeal by the counsel (including a public defender),

1. Article 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides that a resident who acquires a claim against a non-resident as an obligation to collect the claim shall collect it without delay after the due date of the claim or fulfillment of the conditions, except as provided by the Acts and subordinate statutes. In this case, unless the Minister of Finance and Economy deems it unavoidable, he shall not exempt the whole or part of the claim, receive repayment below par value or delay in repayment. Article 31 of the Enforcement Decree provides that a resident other than a national of the Republic of Korea acquires a claim in foreign currency through a transaction which is not subject to the Act or the Decree, and a resident other than a national of the Republic of Korea acquires a claim in foreign currency through a transaction which is not subject to the Act or the Decree, or with the designation or permission as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Finance and Economy, or with the exception of a case where the collection period of the claim has not been extended or the collection period of the claim has become due to normal settlement method, and Chapter 9 of the Foreign Exchange Management Regulations provides for the normal settlement method of foreign exchange.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined, based on the evidence, that the defendant deposited the claims to be paid by the Stona company from Stona company for the defendant as brokerage commission for the import intermediation of chlorates, heavy tin, etc. introduced by agricultural cooperatives from July 31, 1973 to December 31, 1975, and did not collect them without delay, but did not collect them without delay. The court below determined that the number of claims received from Stona company from Stona was not collected without delay with some of the prices adjusted by manipulating the prices of heavy tin, and applied Articles 35 and 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act. Further, as mentioned above, between January 31, 1975 and August 31, 1976, the defendant deposited the Stona company in Stona company and sold them in a foreign country with the equivalent U.S. currency in Korea, and Article 25 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act was subject to the transfer of property from the resident in Korea.

According to the records, although the defendant acquired the above foreign currency claims such as the brokerage commission, etc. for the import mediation of chloudites introduced by the agricultural cooperative, etc. 14 times before and after Slouds and Blouds acquired the above foreign currency claims such as Slouds from Slouds and Blouds for 14 times before and after slouds, he had Slouds, etc. take charge of it on behalf of the defendant without having received the actual US dollars in relation thereto, but he sold the US dollars within the Republic of Korea by the clouds exchange method, and disposed of it by the method of transferring the US dollars to the defendant's account. Thus, the defendant who acquired the above foreign currency claims such as the brokerage commission of this case, etc., has the obligation to collect the above foreign currency claims as soon as possible under the normal receipt settlement method as seen above, it cannot be found that the defendant did not collect the above foreign currency claims by such method, and even if it does not correspond to the foreign exchange management regulations for the foreign exchange, it can be recognized that the defendant designated by Slo under the foreign currency claims.

Therefore, the court below recognized that the defendant did not recover the above foreign currency claims without delay and found the defendant guilty by applying Articles 35 and 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the act of paying U.S. dollars in the U.S. and receiving Korean currency from the residents in the Republic of Korea by means of the exchange method is in violation of Article 22 subparagraph 2 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and it constitutes a violation separate from the violation of Article 20 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it cannot be said that there is a violation of laws or errors

The theory is merely a single opinion on the premise that the amount of payment of US dollars by the method of redemption corresponds to the collection of claims by the normal settlement method under the Foreign Exchange Control Act. The argument is groundless.

2. The other grounds of appeal by the defense counsel are that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below regarding the tax evasion, offering of a bribe, and defamation against the defendant, or that there was no such an error in the judgment of the party members, and that there was no illegality in the return of the party members. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)