The defendant is innocent.

The defendant, misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, has caused people to purchase virtual currency with a credit card, financing a credit card transaction under the pre-sale of the goods, and not allowing people to purchase the virtual currency at that amount.

In such a case, if it is deemed that funds were financed by pretending the sale of goods, this constitutes an analogical interpretation that is unfavorable to the defendant with regard to Article 70(3)2 (a) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act (hereinafter “instant provision”).

The sentence of unfair sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who operates a corporation for the purpose of selling cosmetics wholesale and retail, etc. from January 14, 2016 to September 30, 2017; and from July 2017, “C” is a person who sold virtual currency (hereinafter “instant virtual currency”) through an Internet site (D).

No person shall make a loan by making a credit card transaction in excess of an actual sales of goods or a provision of services, etc., or by making another person do so on his/her behalf.

Nevertheless, around July 3, 2017, the Defendant requested the payment of the instant virtual currency in lieu of cash at the above B office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the Defendant traded the instant virtual currency as if he purchased the cosmetics of KRW 1,300,000 in the name of the said “B” credit card store, even though there was no fact that he actually sold the said goods such as cosmetics, thereby allowing the Defendant to purchase the virtual currency at that amount by lending funds equivalent to the same amount.

By doing so, from around that time to September 18, 2017, the Defendant pretended to sell goods or provide services as shown in the attached list of crimes and traded 143,327,000 won in total over 111 times.