금의 밀수행위에 적용될 처벌법규- 2005.도6484 판결에 대한 평석-Analysis on Statute of Punishment Applicable to Gold Smuggling
- Other Titles
- Analysis on Statute of Punishment Applicable to Gold Smuggling
- Authors
- 박재완
- Issue Date
- Dec-2006
- Publisher
- 한양대학교 법학연구소
- Keywords
- smuggling; gold; gold smuggling; customs duties; evasion ofcustoms duties; Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; Customs Act; Act onthe Aggravated Punishment; Etc. of Specified Crimes; special law; conceptual concurrence; concurrence of provisions; cle; 미신고수입행위; 금; 금괴; 관세법; 외국환거래법; 외국환관리법; 법조경합; 상상적 경합; 특별관계; 통관; 무역거래; 보호법익; 지급수단; smuggling; gold; gold smuggling; customs duties; evasion ofcustoms duties; Foreign Exchange Transactions Act; Customs Act; Act onthe Aggravated Punishment; Etc. of Specified Crimes; special law; conceptual concurrence; concurrence of provisions; cle
- Citation
- 법학논총, v.23, no.3, pp.27 - 48
- Indexed
- KCI
OTHER
- Journal Title
- 법학논총
- Volume
- 23
- Number
- 3
- Start Page
- 27
- End Page
- 48
- URI
- https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/172390
- ISSN
- 1225-228X
- Abstract
- The Supreme Court of Republic of Korea, on Dec 23, 2006, held in Case No. 2005006184 that Foreign Exchange Transactions Act("FETA") should be applied to gold smuggling as special law to Customs Act("CA") and therefore neither CA nor Act on the Aggravated Punishment, E.c. of Specified Crimes "AAPESC") can be wplied to sold smaling in this case, the Supreme Court expressed its reluctance to change its Jong-standing position toward the issue of applicable law to gold smuggling for the first time since the 1907 amendment of CA Unging the Supreme Court to change its position, the public prosecutor in the case argued in the following way: evasion of customs duties resulting from gold smuggling had been punishable by agravated punishment of AAPESC before the 1991 amendment of CA and the Supreme Court recognized it but the 1907 amendment of CA ruled out evasion of customs duties resulting from smuggling from categories of punishable evasion of customs duties therefore there has been an unjustifiable dispyrity in punishment of gold smugling between before and after the 1997 amendment of CA the Supreme Court therefore should apply CA or AAPESC, as special law to CA, to gold smuggling without resulting in evasion of customs duties. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this line of argument, reasoning that the interests protected by, and constituent elements of each statute governing punishment of gold smugling of FETA and CA share a common feature enough to certify that FETA is special law to CA for the purpose of punishing gold smuggling. Though not expressly noted, the Supreme Court seemed to make it a premise for this conclusion that such a disparity resulting from the 1987 amendment of CA should be comrected by the National Assembly not by the Court.
- Files in This Item
- There are no files associated with this item.
- Appears in
Collections - 서울 법학전문대학원 > 서울 법학전문대학원 > 1. Journal Articles
![qrcode](https://api.qrserver.com/v1/create-qr-code/?size=55x55&data=https://scholarworks.bwise.kr/hanyang/handle/2021.sw.hanyang/172390)
Items in ScholarWorks are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.