전자금융거래법위반등
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The misapprehension of the legal principle (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) requires the Defendants to make a false report as stated in the crime of false entry in the corporate register, such as public electronic records, and to use the false report.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that judged this part of the facts charged as not guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant V, Defendant A, and Defendant B, and C: one year and two months of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 280 hours of community service order: one year of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 240 hours of community service order) is too unreasonable and unfair.
2. Determination
A. In a case where the promoters, etc. of a stock company to determine the misapprehension of the legal principles can be deemed to have established by registering the establishment of a company in accordance with the requirements and procedures for the establishment of a company under the Commercial Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, the registration of incorporation and the details thereof do not constitute the crime of false entry in the authentic copy of a notarial deed or the crime of false entry, such as
At the time of incorporation of the Company by promoters, etc., there was an intention or purpose of crime using the Company without actually operating the Company.
solely on the ground that a company did not have the substance of its business, such as human and physical organization, cannot be deemed to have recorded false facts in the corporate register.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do9293, Feb. 27, 2020). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendants decided to establish a false corporation for the purpose of opening and selling a large-scale passbook. The Defendants were the same company as indicated in the list of crimes (1), (3), (7), and (5) of the attached Form 1 of the lower judgment.