The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) that the Defendant did not know about the operation and management of investment funds in EB G (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each company of this case”), profit structure and internal situation of E, all the investment funds invested by each company of this case are managed by L, K, M, etc. as an executive of E, and the Defendant was not an employee of each company of this case, and the circumstances that the lower court considered as the grounds for judgment of innocence are irrelevant to the establishment or intentional recognition of a similar receiving act.

The Defendant, as the head of the business team, recruited investors for investment goods sold by each of the instant companies, received certain fees in return, and did not have been aware that each of the instant companies was aware of the fact that it did not obtain authorization for similar receipt business.

may be seen.

Therefore, although the defendant's act constitutes a similar receiving act and dolusent intention of the defendant, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

(a) No person who outlines the facts charged shall engage in a business of importing contributions under an agreement with many and unspecified persons to pay the total amount of contributions or an amount in excess thereof in the future without obtaining authorization or permission, making registration or report, etc.;

Nevertheless, on December 6, 2015, the Defendant, from the E (ju) office located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to F, “E is a company investing in the converted bonds (CB) and investing in a large number of KOSDAQ-listed companies such as G and H, and the object of investment is limited to the converted bonds and the investment in financial instruments such as KOSDAQ-listed companies, and has reached the business of Ethiopib farm, China, and Vietnam Exchange Holdings. Accordingly, the Defendant, as a merchant bank, has invested in the E-based product with three months of “E” and six months of maturity each month.