유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty, despite the fact that the Defendant traded money as stated in the facts charged regarding the act of receiving similar money. However, since the Defendant actually used the money received for the distribution business of chickens and ducks, it is incidental to the real transaction, which does not constitute an act of receiving similar money.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
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 of money, and Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act prohibits the act of receiving money in the future, providing that “an act of receiving money in the future by promising to pay an amount in full or in excess of the amount of money invested.” The legislative intent of regulating the act of receiving similar money is to protect good customers by regulating the act of raising money under the pretext of money, deposits, etc. from many and unspecified persons without obtaining permission under the related Acts and subordinate statutes, and to establish a sound
Therefore, in light of such legislative purport or the meaning of the term “investment” under the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, the revenue of the fund through the transaction of goods is difficult to be considered as the revenue of the investment and it can be deemed as an act of receiving similar money that is prohibited under the Act only in cases where it is difficult to regard it as the revenue of the investment, and it is possible to regard it as only the revenue of the fund without the transaction of the goods as the actual transaction of the goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do2213, Nov. 24, 2005). However, such legal principle is the purport that if the fund received by the defendant actually has the nature of the consideration for the transaction of goods, it does not constitute an act of receiving similar money