(a) the meaning of "transfer business" under Article 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act;

(b) Relationship between a violation of Article 5 (4) of the same Act and an unmanned exchange service;

(a)The term "those conducting money exchange business" in Article 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act means commercial, continuous trade in foreign currency, and purchase of travelers' checks issued in foreign countries, so it shall not be deemed to be a money exchange business prescribed in that Article unless commercial profit exists in the money exchange activities;

B. The crime of violation of Article 10 (1) of the Unmanned Exchange Act and the crime of violation of Article 5 (4) of the same Act, which trades foreign currency without reference to the basic exchange rate and handling fees, are two crimes, and there are two crimes.

Articles 10(1) and 35 of the Foreign Management Act, Article 5(4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Article 40 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Do351 delivered on April 28, 1970, 77Do3236 delivered on February 28, 1978

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Young-young, Park Young-young, Kim Young-chul

Incheon District Court Decision 86No502 delivered on February 5, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) Examining the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's decision that recognized the fact that the defendant purchased or sold the U.S. currency over several times without the basic exchange rate and handling fee determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy without the approval of the court of first instance is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the incomplete hearing. It is groundless

(2) However, the exchange business in Article 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act refers to commercial, continuous trade in foreign currency and purchase of travelers' checks issued in foreign countries, and such exchange business shall not be deemed to be a money exchange business as provided in Article 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do3236 delivered on February 28, 1978).

In light of the records, the defendant's act of exchanging in this case was merely conducted by the defendant while running miscellaneous images by the defendant's request from the defendant of the first instance court, who is a customer, for the purpose of viewing the convenience of the female, and there was no profit-making or profit-making. We look at the contents of the prosecution by itself, but even after examining all the evidence cited by the judgment of the first instance court, which the court of first instance cited by the court below, by comparing the records, it cannot be found that there is profit-making evidence that the defendant has

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the money exchange business as stipulated in Article 10 (1) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations on the premise that the defendant's act of money exchange in this case was of profit-making nature without authorization on the ground that the defendant performed the money exchange business without authorization. It is reasonable to point out this error.

(3) On the other hand, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below examined ex officio the crime of money exchange and the crime of trading foreign currency without approval of the court below, on the ground that each crime of trading foreign currency is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the crime of trading foreign currency without permission of the court below is deemed to be concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and therefore, the punishment of concurrent crimes under the crime of trading unmanned money exchange is severe. However, each of these crimes is in a commercial concurrent relation in case where one act constitutes two crimes and is in a commercial concurrent relation (the prosecutor has also instituted a public prosecution as concurrent crimes). Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles concerning concurrent crimes, and in this respect, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained.

(4) Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse all the judgment of the court below including the violation of Article 5 (4) of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, which is in a commercial concurrent relationship, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)