A. misunderstanding the facts and legal principles, Defendant A had a custody for a certain period of time from customers, return them, or lent their own funds. Since the scope of money changers under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act should be interpreted narrowly, the above act is included in foreign exchange business as “deposit and money lending business.”

Ultimately, the Defendants were engaged in the unregistered foreign exchange business.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on this issue is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a fine of five million won per fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the violation of the Foreign Exchange Transaction Act due to the conduct of unregistered foreign exchange business on the grounds stated in its reasoning, based on its reasoning.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable in its determination by legitimately adopting the evidence and comparing it with the evidence examined by the lower court. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor, as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor.

shall not be deemed to exist.

① Under the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, “deposits, lending and lending of money, or guarantee with residents denominated or paid in foreign currency” are one of the foreign exchange business (Article 3(1)16(c) of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act). A deposit contract can be deemed as a contract for consumption of money, the deposit amount of which belongs to a financial institution’s proprietary property, the method of fund management by a financial institution concerning deposits, in principle, is not limited, and the payment of principal and interest pursuant to the agreed interest rate is guaranteed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da6452, Nov. 29, 2007). In this case, there was no agreement between Defendant A and D, and F on the payment of interest, and DB is entrusted to Defendant A.