유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) by the court below is irrelevant to the establishment or intentional recognition of a similar receiving act, i.e., the defendant did not know about the operation and management of the FBJ (hereinafter referred to as the "each company of this case")'s investment funds, the profit structure and internal circumstances, all of the investment funds invested by each company of this case by M, L, N, etc. as F's executive officers, and the fact that the defendant is not an employee of each company of this case.
Rather, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant, as the head of the business team, recruited investors in relation to investment products sold by each of the instant companies, received certain fees in return, and recognized the fact that each of the instant companies did not obtain authorization for similar receipt business.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act constitutes an act of receiving similar facts, and that the defendant not guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of receiving similar facts and intentional acts.
2. Determination
A. Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts and Subordinate Statutes prohibits the act of receiving similar amounts, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “The act of importing investments under an agreement to pay the total amount of investments or an amount exceeding the said amount of investments in the future” as an act of receiving similar amounts. The legislative intent of regulating the act of receiving similar amounts is to regulate the act of raising funds from many and unspecified persons under the pretext of investment, etc. without obtaining permission under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, thereby protecting good traders and establishing a sound financial order (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1614, May 26, 2006). Meanwhile, the recognition of conviction in a criminal trial is a judge.