Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for three years, for two years, for two years, for two years, and for three years.

A. Although it is necessary to separately examine and decide on a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receipt by the Defendants pursuant to Article 32(6) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby rendering each sentence to the Defendants.

B. Defendants 1) 1, 1, and 2 are aware of the fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles) Defendant A and B’s explanation from the F Representative Director J that the sale of E products developed by the said company may obtain enormous profits, and they are engaged in investment in the said company or related business, and they have collected investment funds in order to raise funds necessary for the mass production of products according to the direction of the J. Therefore, it is not recognized that there was fraud by the victims or deception.

B) The amount of profit acquired by the Defendants from the victim AG is not less than 50 million won, and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes does not apply.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2) The lower court’s punishment against the illegal Defendants (Defendant A: 4 years of imprisonment, Defendant B, and Defendant C: 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is 1) When a judgment of multiple crimes for which judgment of relevant legal doctrine has not become final and conclusive at the same time, the punishment shall be imposed in accordance with the penal provisions stipulated under Article 38 of the Criminal Act. As such, in order to exclude the application of Article 38 of the Criminal Act to several crimes indicted for concurrent crimes, and to sentence a sentence different from the above penal provisions, there is a express provision recognizing an exception (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do606, Apr. 9, 2004). Article 32 of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Financial Control Structure Act”) of one column of “examination of the largest shareholder’s qualification, etc.” under the title of “examination of the largest shareholder’s qualification.”