(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2010고단6488 판결[간접투자자산운용업법위반][미간행]
Defendant
Lighting water
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.
Any officer or employee in charge of sales business of indirect investment securities shall be prohibited from soliciting customers to guarantee their profits, such as guaranteeing the principal of investment.
At around 11:01 on October 13, 2006, the Defendant, who was in charge of fund and asset management in Nonindicted Co. 1, as a person in charge of the fund and asset management affairs against customers, solicited the victim Nonindicted Co. 2 to subscribe to the CJ2St4 Real Derivatives Investment Trust 1-1 funds by telephone at the customer at the ○○○○ Branch Financial Center, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Non-Indicted. 1, 2006, and there is little possibility that the funds newly emitted are actually principal losses. Nonindicted Co. 1, as well as all principal losses, has yet to be repaid at an early stage, and the funds have been repaid individually from 2004 to 100% from 2004. In fact, even in the absence of stock price, the Defendant recommended the Defendant to guarantee profits, such as guaranteeing the principal of investment, by stating that the principal would continue to have been damaged.”
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 2
1. Article applicable to criminal facts;
Article 41 of the Addenda to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; Article 182 Subparag. 10 of the former Act on Business of Operating Indirect Investment and Assets (amended by Act No. 8635 of Aug. 3, 2007); Article 57(1)1 of the former Act (selected of a fine)
1. Detention in a workhouse;
Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act
【Penalty and Sentencing】
Although ○○ Defendant acknowledged the fact that he made a statement as stated in the facts charged, the degree alone argues that it does not constitute “invitation to guarantee profits, such as guaranteeing the principal of investment, etc.” under the applicable provisions of this case, but if the statement to the same effect as stated in the facts charged, it can be evaluated as solicitation to guarantee profits
Considering various circumstances, such as the criminal defendant and non-indicted 2's transaction relation, and other criminal records and arguments of the defendant, the criminal records and circumstances of the crime, etc.
Judges Shin Shin-young