beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2017노383

자본시장과금융투자업에관한법률위반

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and (1) Article 55 subparag. 2 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act prohibits an act of causing an investor to compensate for all or part of the loss incurred by the investor “after death.” As stated in Articles 1, 2, and 4 of the lower judgment, the Defendant’s act of preparing three copies of the instant promissory note process to C, as stated in the lower judgment, did not constitute “after death” to compensate for part of the loss suffered by C, nor did it constitute “after death.”

(2) The Defendant’s preparing three copies of the promissory note process certificates of this case and one copy of the stock account transaction agreement to C is null and void by a bad intent, and the Defendant did not have any intention to violate the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of KRW 10 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to whether the Defendant constitutes an act of compensating for losses, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act of preparing three copies of a promissory note fairness certificate to compensate for part of the losses suffered by C as stated in Articles 1, 2, and 4 as indicated in the lower judgment’s holding, and that the Defendant’s act of preparing and executing a promissory note fairness certificate to C constitutes an act of compensating for losses suffered by C, not merely an ex post promise to compensate for part of the losses suffered by C, in light of the fact that C can acquire the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant and enforce compulsory execution.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court as to whether the Defendant was an expression of intention or not, namely, the Defendant was an employee of a new financial investment company, and (i) was in charge of managing the securities account opened in the name of an investor C from September 2010, and since September 2013.