On December 2, 2016, the Defendant had been working on the opening of a presidential passbook in the name of the deceased juristic person B from the early police officer B.

Upon introduction of C, establishing a floating corporation with C and D, and publicly recruited to open the name of the corporation and sell passbooks, cash cards, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) opened a corporation; (b) recruited persons in charge of the opening of a bankbook, such as E,F, and G; and (c) instructed persons to open a bankbook using documents related to the old corporation; (d) submitted documents related to the establishment of a floating corporation to a certified judicial scrivener or a certified tax accountant office in accordance with the direction of the Defendant and C; and (c) managed the corporation established as above; and (e) delivered documents necessary for opening the passbook to the persons in charge of the opening of the passbook, such as E, and sent such passbook and access media to the Defendant and C when the passbook is opened.

1. Where a bank interference with business opens an account in the name of a juristic person, if the fact that the certificate of employment of an applicant for opening the account is false, the opening of the relevant juristic person’s account shall not be permitted, and if such fact is revealed after opening the relevant account, the power of attorney of the applicant for opening the relevant account and documents proving his/her identity (such as power of attorney, certificate of employment, etc.) are important factors for determining whether to open or trade in the relevant account. In addition, when the relevant account is used for a crime, the bank that opened the relevant account bears the liability for damages pursuant to the Electronic Financial Transactions Act depending on negligence. Thus, whether the juristic person that intends to open the account is a juristic person normally established, or whether the applicant for opening the