The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

47,225,714 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Of violation of the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, the part on the use of a new bank account in the name of L was merely used in the name of L, the Defendant was a person with bad credit standing, and does not disguise the fact on the acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from September 10, 2012 to December 17, 2012, opened a gambling space on the Internet and received 66,050,000 won from the operator of the head office on the site as stated in the attached list of crimes (A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A) from L’s new bank account (M) and pretended to acquire criminal proceeds, etc.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged based on the evidence in its judgment.

C. Article 3(1)1 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment provides that “an act that disguises the fact about acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds, etc.” is punished. Such an act may include the act of pretending criminal proceeds, etc. to belong to a third party, such as depositing criminal proceeds, into an account opened in another person’s name, which is called the so-called borrowed account. In a specific case, in determining whether the act of depositing criminal proceeds, etc. with respect to a borrowed account constitutes “an act that disguises the fact about acquisition or disposition of criminal proceeds,” the relevant act should comprehensively take into account the relationship between the actual user and the account holder, the motive and background of the use of the relevant account by the user, the specific circumstances of deposit transactions, etc.

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1004 Decided February 28, 2008