The court ruled that it was not a “false crisis” over the fact that a blockchain was written in the evidence document when trading virtual currency.
Looking into the case, the virtual currency trader, A, applied to a foreign exchange bank for the remittance of the purchase amount to a foreign currency exchange for the purpose of purchasing a virtual currency from an overseas virtual currency exchange, or sold the virtual currency and received the sales amount through a foreign exchange bank, which he wrote as a virtual currency statement instead of the invoice and offer sheet.
Looking into the case, the virtual currency trader, A, applied to a foreign exchange bank for the remittance of the purchase amount to a foreign currency exchange for the purpose of purchasing a virtual currency from an overseas virtual currency exchange, or sold the virtual currency and received the sales amount through a foreign exchange bank. which he wrote as a ‘blockchain’ instead of virtual currency on the invoice and offer sheet.
In response, the Seoul Customs Service imposed a hefty fine on A for submitting false evidence to a foreign exchange bank, as it did to trade a ‘blockchain’ while trading virtual currency. As a violation of the procedures for payment and receipt under the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act.
The Seoul Western District Court, which reviewed the case, said, “The “blockchain” is a distributed ledger technology that tries to solve the problem of centralized ledger by distributing the ledger that recorded transaction information to the P2P network rather than the central server of a particular institution and that the ‘blockchain’ is not a false statement of virtual currency.”
The above decision was confirmed as the prosecutor did not appeal.
The government tried to overhaul regulations related to virtual currency by forming a joint TF of related ministries. At the time when investment in virtual currency was actively made, but until now, no statute clearly stipulated on the nature or legal nature of virtual currency existed, nor did the Supreme Court’s case nor the relevant authorities’ interpretation of the vote exist within limited issues.
These circumstances have caused a lot of confusion in practice regarding virtual currency transactions, and there have been a series of disputes between state agencies and stakeholders, large and small in tax, criminal and administrative.
Joo Sung-joon, a lawyer for the Pacific law firm that led the ruling, said, “This court decision is expected to have a significant impact on future practice related to virtual currency as well as on cases of the same issue that are ongoing in various courts, given that the decision was confirmed as the first decision to clarify whether the payment or receipt of virtual currency transactions violated under the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act and in particular. Because the prosecutor has accepted the the court decision.”
In addition, he said, ” Pacific law firm’s Tax Group, has drawn the above court’s decision through careful analysis and review of the nature of virtual currency, legal nature, general usage, and other related regulations, which are the basis for the penalty surcharge.”