All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. The Defendant: The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, despite the fact that: (a) the Defendant: (b) prevented the excess of HTS itself (hereinafter “HTS”); (c) operated a business entity under the name of a person, such as F, and paid income tax in its name in order to avoid the interest of the same industry and financial authorities; and (d) did not have any intention to evade tax through the separation of sales, etc.; and (c) did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine in the lower court that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged

B. Prosecutor 1) The Defendant’s futures account lending business falls under the category of investment brokerage business, and the Value-Added Tax Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof are the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”).

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or erroneous determination of not guilty of this part of the facts charged, on the ground that the investment brokerage business, which was conducted without obtaining authorization under the Capital Markets Act, is exempt from value-added tax. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds that it constitutes “money credit business” and constitutes an exemption from value-added tax. 2) The lower court’s fine (15 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s establishment of a futures account lending company in the name of another person and distributed the Defendant’s sales and omitted income return constitutes tax evasion by “Fraud or other unlawful means”.

1. The Defendant initially established and operated a futures account lending business under his own name by establishing a “stock companyO”, and closed down the business, and thereby, the Defendant’s sales have been made.