Cases where there is an error of law that erroneously applies the law of trial to apply the law of trial;

Article 6 (6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be applied to Defendant’s attempted evasion of customs duties at the time of the first trial, and since the above Act was amended by Act No. 2032 prior to the judgment below, it is clear by Article 50 of this Act that Defendant’s punishment under Article 182 (2) and Article 180 (1) of the Customs Act at the time of the first trial after the crime of this case is two times until the judgment of the court below.

Article 1 of the Addenda to the Criminal Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 182 of the Customs Act, Article 180 of the Customs Act

Defendant

Busan District Court Decision 68No88 delivered on June 13, 1968, Busan District Court Decision 68No88 delivered on June 13, 1968

All the original judgment and the first instance judgment shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

140 days out of the detention days before a judgment of the court of first instance is rendered shall be included in the original sentence.

The seized Manaba 52 other (No. 1), Mabamad 237 (No. 2), Doru 305 (No. 3), siba 250 (No. 4), siba 1 (No. 5), 137.5ma (No. 6), 100 (No. 7) and even siba 440ma (No. 8) shall be confiscated from the defendant.

1,020,173 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.

However, in full view of the defendant's confession that the defendant received US dollars 2,500 and Japanese 20,000 won from the non-indicted moving water, and the defendant's confession that the defendant had generated smuggling imported goods, such as sexual harassment, even though Japan was in original condition, and that the defendant was seized before it was in the sea before it, as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the criminal facts in violation of the Foreign Exchange Control Act at the time of the first trial against the defendant, and in this case where the five-year period of imprisonment was sentenced, the argument that the amount of the punishment was excessive, does not fall under any of the causes provided for in the subparagraphs of Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 1(2) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the first instance court shall ex officio examine the application of the law of the first instance, and Article 1(2) and Article 50 of the same Act shall apply to the defendant's criminal act by comparing the severity of punishment. Article 18-3 and (2) and Article 198(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 years, and Article 182(2) and Article 180(6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes cannot be applied to the first instance court's new provision on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 180(1) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which was amended by Act No. 1976, Nov. 29, 197; Article 201 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

The summary of facts and evidence recognized by the principal court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by Articles 399 and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Article 1(2) and Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that if the severity of punishment is compared with that of Defendant 2, Defendant 4 and 50 of the same Act (Article 1(2) and Article 198(1) and Article 6(6) of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) are applicable under Article 198-3(2) and Article 198(6) of the same Act, and Article 182(2) and Article 180(1) of the same Act provides that if Defendant 4 and 5 of the same Act (Article 197 of the same Act provides that if Defendant 2 and 5 of the same Act provides that the amount of punishment shall be reduced by 60 U.S. dollars and 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Article 6(7) of the same Act, 182(1) and 180(1) of the Customs Act provides that if Defendant 3 and 5 of the same Act provide that punishment shall be imposed on each of the same Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Round Kim Gi-soon