2018No2462 (a) Fraud

(b) Violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

C. Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission

2018 early 1716, 2019 early 61, 106, 120, 141, 156, 169, 224, 495

496, 497, 498, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511;

512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 537, 559,

560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 568, 570, 576, 594;

595, 601, 604, 640, 726 Application for a compensation order

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(a)(c) B

3.(a)(c) C

4.(a)(c) D

5. (a)(c) E;

6.(a)(c)F;

7.(a)(c) G;

8. b. H

9.(a)(c) I

Defendants and Prosecutor ( Defendants A, B, C, D, E, F, and G)

Criminal prosecution (prosecution), final pen, and mobile (public trial)

Attorney Full-time (for the defendant A, B, and D)

Law Firm LLC (Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H Co., Ltd.)

For purposes of

Attorney Jeong-tae, Lee Jong-tae, Lee Jong-soo, Kim Jong-hwan, and Park Tae-gi

Law Firm native Law (For Defendant B and H)

Attorney Park Jae-hwan, Lee Jae-hwan, Lee Jae-in

Law Firm Pyeong (Defendant B, Law Firm H)

Attorney Park Jin-jin, Kim Han-jin, the largest number of mines, Kim Jae-sik, Park Jae-sik

Law Firm (for the defendant B)

Attorney Noh Jeong-ray

Law Firm Lee Jong-il (for defendant B)

[Defendant-Appellant]

Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Lee Sang-hoon (for the defendant C)

Attorney Kim Yong-Hy (for defendant D)

Law Firm Il-ho (Defendant F)

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Park Young-young (for the defendant G)

Law Firm Gongdo (for Defendant 1),

Attorney Shin Hun-han, Lee Jae-chul

Attached Form 3 is the same as the list of applicants.

KE (for an applicant for compensation, the KF)

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015Da4570, 2015 Decided December 3, 2018

464(Joint), 2015 Highest 4927(Joint), 2015 Highest 5342(Joint) Judgment

June 4, 2019

Of the judgment below, the part against the defendant A, B, D, F, G, and I shall be reversed. The defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for 6 years; imprisonment for 12 years; imprisonment for 4 years; imprisonment for the defendant E, F, and G; for 3 years; and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months. Of the facts charged in this case, the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized Receipt of Contracts by Defendants A, C, D, E, F, G; 15 (Consumer G); 126 (Customer 2); 705 (Customer 5); order 700 (Customer 7); order 405 (Customer 1); attached Table 8 (Customer 1); order 500 (Customer 1); order 500); order 43 (Customer 1); order 805 (Customer 1); and attached Table 8 (Customer 1); order 98 (Customer 5); order 50 (Customer 1); order 500 (Customer 1); order 9 (2); order 8 (3);

All applications for compensation order filed by the applicant for compensation in the trial shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles, unreasonable sentencing)

1) Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, or G’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) Recognizing that a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) is recognized, there is no evidence as to who, at any time, promises to guarantee the principal and conclusive profit to any investor and attracting investment money. There is no evidence as to this issue. The issue of conclusive profit-making type is merely a concept classified for the distinction between the items without security and the items without security. The Defendants provided the victims with no fixed profit-making, and the Defendants provided the victims with thorough education that, inasmuch as the guarantee of principal is against the law, it is against the law. Nama submitted evidence is merely about the employees belonging to K branch under the headquarters, and that the total amount of investment amount of KRW 158.19 billion is about KRW 198,800,000.

B) As to fraud, although recognizing it as concurrent crimes, the facts charged, such as the date and time, place method, etc. for each victim, causing trouble to the exercise of the right to defense, and there is also lack of proof by each crime. Investment in the instant case was used in full for investment and, in particular, investment in the FA, CG, CI, etc., made a huge profit. In addition, as to the part related to Defendant B only, in relation to the case involving the CM private investment association (CN), the KG’s representative director at the KMN Co., Ltd. at the KMN Co., Ltd. at the KMN Co., Ltd. (CN), the investment was only recovered, and the investment was returned to all investors while suspending the business, and in relation to the CMM investment association (CR sealing), the amount returned under the name of the sales agency fee at the time of solicitation was not finalized, and it does not constitute deception since CV stocks are merely those not accepted due to unexpected circumstances.

2) Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants (the defendant A: 3 years of imprisonment, the defendant B: 8 years of imprisonment, the defendant C.E.F.G. respectively, the defendant corporation H: fine of 200 million won and the defendant I: imprisonment of 1 and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s grounds for appeal against the Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G (e.g., misappropriation) that the lower court sentenced to the said Defendants (the Defendant A: imprisonment with prison labor for three years, Defendant B: imprisonment with prison labor for eight years, and Defendant CDF.G: each of the two years) are unreasonable.

2. Determination as to Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and ex officio determination as to Defendant 1

A. Articles 6(1), 3, and 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14725, May 27, 2010) can only be deemed an act of receiving money through a multi-level marketing organization, etc. and, furthermore, an act of receiving money cannot be deemed as an act of receiving money without delay, and furthermore, an act of receiving money in the future constitutes a crime under Articles 6(

B. The court below explained to the effect that ① the 18 items, such as BO (EV) and one vice president of H, are "a fixed profit-making type" or "a fixed profit-making type," and that the above items mean not only the guarantee of principal but also the solicitation of investment to investors, and Defendant B is "a meeting of the 'Executive Committee', which is a meeting of the company decision-making, ensure that the principal amount is guaranteed and 00% of the principal amount is guaranteed," and that the head of the 'IO' has delivered the same contents to the head of the 'IO' to the prosecution. ② The NA, which was an investor and the head of the SH's team, stated to the effect that there was no profit-making in the 2nd meeting, including BO, EX, EX2, EY, etc. The 1st meeting of the 2nd meeting of the court below, and that there was no profit-making in the 2nd meeting of the company's office and its director's oral statement to the 2nd meeting.

C. However, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that leads a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it shall be judged in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001). The act of receiving the same kind of money prohibited by the Act is based on the premise that "the agreement to pay the whole amount of principal or any amount in excess of the principal amount from many unspecified investors" (hereinafter referred to as "principal guarantee agreement") as mentioned above, each investor should be found guilty. However, considering each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendants' act of guaranteeing the principal amount cannot be found to have been concluded, separate from the facts charged by the prosecutor, or there is no other evidence that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the existence of the agreement between the investors and the principal agreement.

1) The meaning of the terms "a fixed profit-making type" or "a fixed profit-making trend type"

0 The term "a fixed profit-making type" is understood as a type that is distinguished from that of "a fixed profit-making type", while the term "a fixed profit-making type" is understood as a type that is sought to be "a fixed profit-making type" until it reaches its purpose, i.e., "a fixed profit-making type", and the term "a fixed profit-making type" was first used and changed into the name "a fixed profit-making type".

0 The issue of "a fixed profit-making type" or "a fixed profit-making type" refers to a type of product with a device that can cover losses, such as a security agreement, or where the form of investment is a bond type.0 "a fixed profit-making type" or "a fixed profit-making type" is different from the literal meaning of the word "a fixed profit-making trend type", but it can be accepted in a similar sense from the search portal such as BL to the key in the search portal, a number of funds are searched, and according to the KH economic fish advance, "a fixed profit-making type fund" means a fund designed to pay profits regardless of the direction of the stock market. 0 H, DG, DO, DO, or DF used the word "a fixed profit-making type" as a witness of 0 H, who was an employee of the lower court, "a fixed profit-making type" or "a fixed profit-making type" as an expression "a final and conclusive order" that can be used in the act of receiving the same kind.

2) There is no content of the principal guarantee agreement in the relevant investment contract, and there is a lack of objective evidence regarding the conclusion of the principal guarantee agreement.

An undisclosed investment association-related association decision plan, such as 0O, states that "it is less than the operational objective profit of the association or may cause a loss," "if the investment has been reduced due to loss, only the balance shall be returned," and investors stated that "I will fully recognize the possibility of loss of the principal invested due to the business of the association at the end of the undisclosed investment association-related investment agreement, such as BO, and prepare this contract?"

0. Although the oral contract is acknowledged under the civil law that has a contractual effect, and the witness, DB, DJ, DJ, DF, DF, DL, DN, Q Q, and DI stated that they invested in the relevant item on the ground that the principal is guaranteed and the final profit is guaranteed in the original court court. However, it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that such investment solicitation act was understood as such, and unless there is no objective evidence to support the above legal statement, it is difficult to reverse the validity of the investment agreement, which is a disposal document, unless there is any objective evidence to support the above legal statement, such as a domain, etc.

0 Even if H, as a sales method that sells investment products, sells TV home shopping, including “I expect to close within 40 seconds of a first-come-come-served end, 1 minute end, and 40 seconds,” it is difficult to recognize that the principal guarantee agreement was concluded only with such sales method and investment process, even if some investors have made the said signature by inducing so-called hold-up investment by using investor’s uneasiness deliberation.

0 As seen below, the Defendants paid the principal and the profits specified in the investment contract in the case of a part of the investment issues. However, this is more likely to be deemed to have been carried out to avoid the investigation or to make a false or exaggerated return for attracting new subscribers rather than having been paid according to the principal guarantee agreement.

3) The lower court’s convictions as to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, as to ① to ⑤ each statement or e-mail and BK message to the effect that principal is guaranteed, is insufficient to be a direct evidence to acknowledge that the principal guarantee agreement has been concluded with an individual investor as to the business instruction within the H in the dispute resolution committee.

0 In the meeting of the 'Executive Committee' which is a meeting where Defendant B's decision-making is made, the above items shall be explained as follows: "the ○○ Goods shall guarantee the principal and interest of O% in a final and conclusive manner; "CI shall finally guarantee the national investors (the team leader, etc.) in the demand-making place;" and "I shall finally guarantee the profits;" and "I shall pay 7% and 14% per year in the case of the items of the CE in the case of the branch hosting of the AU branch, EW chief team, etc." as profits. However, the fact that the above person made the statement that "I shall be guaranteed by the company." However, the EW or L director's recommendation to make investments in BP, EX2, tourism transfer, EY, etc. to the team leader, and that it shall guarantee the final profits by verbal or e-mail. (Evidence No. 174, 1077 et al.) is recognized.

00, however, the court stated that "A witness E, C, EW, 3) FS, and FT have been understood to refer to a somewhat stable investment issue than a general type because they have prepared a plan to recover the principal in the case of the definite profit-making type type of business," and that "DF, DI, DJ, DJ, DM, DM, Q, DR, DR, FO, and FP have stated to the effect that "no one is understood to preserve the loss if it is impossible to recover the investment amount even after taking measures such as the exercise of the security right."

0 Although the Defendants may constitute an act of fund-raising without delay through the business employees’ training or business instruction (each statutory statement, evidence record No. 19, 5,116, etc. of the first instance court witness DC, IK, and FH) and induce the business members to engage in unreasonable business by using the rare allowances system and induce them to engage in the business without any agreement for fund-raising, it is difficult to recognize that the agreement on the guarantee of principal has been concluded between H and investors solely on the ground of such circumstances, even if the Defendants induced or strengthened the belief of investors in the manner of publicly announcing false return on profit at the company level.

In light of the fact-finding statement, etc. of the witness EW, even if a part of the principal guarantee agreement was made orally, it cannot be ruled out that it is an exclusive act of business members who conducted investment consultation with the relevant investor, and it is difficult to conclude that it was made under the approval of the Defendants or made under the contact with the Defendants. Therefore, the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to this part of the Defendants A, B, C, D, E, F, and G has merit, and on the other hand, Defendant 1 confessions about this part of the judgment even though the remaining evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a violation of the Act on the Regulation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission. As such, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending facts or by misapprehending legal principles as to this part of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of judgment

3. Judgment on the assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles in relation to the fraud of Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, and G

A. Introduction

Unlike typical multi-level financial fraud, the Defendants asserted that their businesses have the substance of each business, and all investment funds were invested in the relevant business, and they did not constitute fraud on the ground that there are many cases of embezzlement of investment funds. On the other hand, the facts charged in the instant case states that even though it is almost impossible to pay earnings within the investment period stipulated in the business structure, the Defendants deceiving investors in regard to the so-called return of investments made by other investment items because it is almost impossible, they could not pay profits within the investment period stipulated in the business structure, they are stated as a core deception. In other words, the Defendants asserted that they were unaware of the source of payment of profits from the business model, on the other hand, the Defendants asserted that they did not deception because they had been actually invested in the business

However, since the facts charged in this case are premised on the premise that the business of this case constitutes a financial fraud crime, prior to determining the claims on both sides, the general characteristics of the financial fraud crime and the relevant provisions of the Capital Markets Act should be first examined.

B. 4) The term "financial fraud crime" is defined as "an act of taking property gains in violation of the credit or trust required in financial transactions by deceiving or manipulating the real financial state of the financial transaction by deceiving or manipulating the financial transaction entity, which infringes on the credit and trust between the financial transaction entities and ultimately harms the national economic order." The financial fraud crime, which has been committed together with the history of the market, is recently specialized, organized, and advanced, and can be disguised or discarded by legitimate acts by using professional knowledge and computer technology, so there are many cases where it is difficult to grasp the investigation report or to secure evidence. In such financial fraud crimes, the following common features are shown.

① Money is deposited at a high rate and infinite return rate. A contract is concluded by pretending to be a normal business, but its substance is often intended to acquire money from the beginning, and such form of money is most most cases constituting fraud. The continuous return on profit, guarantee excessive profit in comparison with risk, and propaganda is conducted to the extent that the investment environment has been rapidly changing, and has achieved stable performance to the extent that it is difficult to believe.

(2) In organizing business human resources, it is desirable to introduce a drid allowance system and make business members raise unreasonable investments. Business members are voluntarily engaged in stimulative business activities in order to receive high-quality allowances in accordance with the distrid allowances system. In addition, the amount of actual investments is relatively small due to the distrid allowances system, and the amount of actual investments is relatively small, and accordingly, the target profit may be paid only when a high profit rate is raised in comparison with the amount of actual investments.

(3) Investment products are also selling investment products with respect to a complex product or a venture business that has no high possibility of success to the extent that they are not registered or experts. This is because, by using an investment structure that is difficult for the general potential investors to easily understand, the evaluation of the business is inevitable rather than a reasonable analysis on the business itself, by using the investment structure that is difficult for them to understand, and can easily belong to potential investors by manipulating the return on profit in such a situation.The accounting data is operated, the audit is inadequate, and related data are not disclosed or fabricated.

④ There are many cases in which an offender’s fund management or investment business does not exist or is in a failure. The Criminal Proceeds Act is largely distinguishable from the following: (a) a mosive method (or a cruel method by which an investment source is made by falsity, such as an investment product, finance, real estate, profit-making business, etc. that does not exist in reality) and the inducement method (or a false or exaggerated advertisement, or a false act, even though there is no actual investment product or investment source but it is not possible to make profits due to its poor or actual failure). However, under the inducement method, it is probable that an investment fraud who owns a professional or professional medical clinic is a method by which he/she uses an investment product in which he/she actually exists, and thus, it is possible to take stenographic notes up to more prudent investors than the mos Act.

(5) The combined management of investment funds makes it clear that the occurrence of profits, etc. can not be known through the mixed management of investment funds. This may be an essential premise for the fraud because the trustee, beyond the mere violation of the Capital Markets Act, allows the trustee to deduct the future money at any time.

(6) Even if profits are not paid, the outcome of the payment of all the principal and earnings agreed upon by the existing subscribers shall be actively publicized, and even if the payment is not made, the performance shall be promoted by falsity and exaggeration. This is because the attraction of new customers is possible even if there is a high return on profit. The theoretical public relations of goods alone makes it difficult to continuously attract customers and make it difficult for the general public to easily understand the structure of investment due to the complexity of the goods itself, thereby cruelly inducing potential investors using the outcome that is the outcome of performance. In addition, it may also be strengthened to believe that the principal is substantially guaranteed even if the principal payment contract is not made without the arrival of the time of return or even if the time of return comes, the problem is not surfaced in the stage of "hicking the distribution made to the customers first with the funds of the new customers", and thus, it is more severe damage to the customer).

7) The pertinent project must be collapsed ultimately. Even if the volume of profit is high, the size of the profit would be less than the size of the dividend, so that it would collapse itself. In addition, in large cases, the possibility that the planning person will be involved in the large number of illegal acts would be subject to sanctions by the authorities before the collapse of himself/herself. The relationship between the financial fraud crime and the Capital Markets Act is related to the financial fraud crime.

1) Punishment of a person running a financial investment business without authorization under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is aimed at protecting general investors who engage in such financial investment business by preventing the non-conformity of financial investment business entities, and contributing to the development of the national economy through the sound fostering of financial investment business. For this reason, whether a certain transaction is harmful to the trading of financial investment instruments subject to the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act should be determined with due consideration of the following factors: (a) whether the trading structure can function as a net method to avoid or diversify various risks associated with the financing or economic activities of an enterprise; (b) whether it is necessary to develop the transaction into a new financial investment instrument; (c) whether it is necessary to protect investors; and (d) whether there is a need to protect the transaction participants as investors; and (e) whether there is an adequate regulatory method to protect investors’ interests and maintain sound trading practices (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9660, Sept. 10, 2015).

2) To achieve such legislative purpose and eliminate and prevent individual and specific risks of financial markets, the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act introduced a duty of good faith as a general and comprehensive duty to protect investors by individual financial investment business entity (Article 37). Specifically, with respect to investment traders, Article 70 of the Act on the Prohibition of Voluntary Trading, which is a provision prohibiting investors from being invested, Article 71 subparagraph 6 of the Act that prohibits investors from being invested and managing for each investor, Article 74, which is a provision prohibiting investors from being invested, Article 81 of the Act on the Prohibition of Asset Management, which is a provision restricting the acquisition of one’s own collective investment securities, Article 82 of the Act on the Prohibition of Asset Management, which is a provision restricting the acquisition of one’s own collective investment securities, Article 85 subparagraph 5 of the Act, which is a provision prohibiting the acquisition of one’s own collective investment securities, Article 86 of the Act, which is a provision issuing the asset management report, and Article 89 of the Act.

3) 위 규정 중 특히 집합투자업자에 대하여 투기적 거래를 방지하기 위하여 집합투자기구 자산총액의 10%를 초과하여 동일 종목의 증권에 투자하는 행위 등을 제한하 고(자산운용의 제한), KQ 사기(KQ scheme)의 이른바 돌려막기를 통한 대규모 금융사기 범죄를 사전에 방지하기 위하여 자전거래를 금지하는 규정을 둔 것은 금융산업이 투기적·도박적 성격을 띄게 되어 금융산업의 안정성과 신뢰성을 해하고 투자자들로 하여금 비합리적인 투자를 할 수 있었던 과거의 경험적 사례를 방지하기 위한 것으로 이해할 수 있다. 즉, 좋은 담이 좋은 이웃을 만든다(Good fences make good neighbors). 라. 이러한 금융사기범죄의 특성과 자본시장법의 규정 등을 종합할 때, 금융사기범죄의 핵심은 모집된 투자금을 실제로 사전 고지된 내역 대로 투자하였는지 여부에 있다기 보다는 자금을 모집하면서 투자자에게 자본시장법상 투자자 보호를 위하여 금융투자업 자에게 부여된 의무와 관련된 자금의 운용 특히 수익금의 반환에 관한 위험성과 그 구조에 대하여 기망을 하였는지 여부에 있다 할 것이다.

E. However, when comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants: (a) are unable to pay the principal and the target profit thereof to investors within the agreed investment period; (b) are investments attracting other investors, i.e., the so-called return of the principal and profit from other investors, and (c) are unable to continue to operate the business without paying the principal and profit; (d) thus inducing or strengthening investors to believe that the return of principal and target profit in almost all investment issues can be returned through false or exaggerated publicity, thereby inducing or strengthening the return of profit of other investment issues; and (e) there was a criminal intent to obtain by fraud; and (e) such Defendants’ crimes are deemed financial fraud crimes by typical inducement

1) Business model: The characteristics of the subject of investment, the unrealistic nature of the profit structure unstened for the high cost, the unrealistic profit rate for each type of investment subject, the non-spool characteristics of the investment subject, and the non-spoolability of the investment risk management structure: The most target profit rate proposed by H, such as the target profit rate for each item of investment as listed in the attached list of crimes (2) through (19) of the lower judgment (investment association decision contract, etc.) was publicized as being 18% to 35% of the investment principal before the cost deduction, and this is the repair evaluation.

- High cost mutual-aid agreement: H entered into an investment contract with the content that the remaining investment amount is invested in the relevant investment project after deducting the total amount of 20% (the number of shares shall be 13.5%, 17%, etc.) from the management fees, such as 10% of the total amount of investment, 4% of the formation fees, Deal Scces fe 3%, sour fe 3%, and 3% of the management fees.

- If the return on investment principal is assumed to be 20% based on the above high cost deduction as above, 50% of the actual investment amount (10% of the investment principal + 20%) / (100% of the investment principal + 20% of the investment principal) - 100% of the investment principal - In fact, it should raise the high rate of 2.5 times of the target return.

However, most of the investment targets H are not investment in various subjects, but investment in a single company or business. The main investment targets are venture businesses, etc. with a high yield but with a very low success rate, and thus, it is very unrealistic in itself that it achieves an average yield of at least 50% of the total investment targets. Furthermore, considering the fact that investment targets are not investment in various subjects, but investment targets are a structure that invests most in a single company or business, it is possible for a small number of investment targets to exclusively return, i.e., the profits of other investment issues to pay for the remaining investment issues that have not yet reached the target yield even if they are successful, or have not yet been realized. Nevertheless, as seen below, the Defendants publicize as if they could achieve the target yield set out in almost all investment issues.

On March 31, 2014, 2014, the Financial Accounting Business Review Report prepared by the IMO Accounting Corporation: The Investment Review Team manages the first investment of the insolvent intellectual company's investment structure, one of which is under the management of risk of investment shares, and after the investment has been conducted, it is not subject to substantial follow-up management. In addition, the Investment Review Team does not hold any particular information if it does not make final ESIT, but purchases the first shares of the individual investors who purchased the first shares. It is true that it does not grasp accurate contents and shares at the time of capital increase or capital change (Evidence No. 9, 637 of the Evidence Record). On the investment-related contract management or capital increase of the company's investment-related information only is known to the financial director, and the head of the Investment Association of the Investment Association of the SH has no other relation with the investment company's investment-related research institute's investment-related research institute's investment risk management team's investment-related research team's investment risk and investment-related company's investment-related research team's investment risk.

2) The Radrid allowance system for business employees, etc.: the Defendants paid 9% of the total amount of 9% per investment fund to the business employees, etc., entered 95% or more of the business employees into the insurance company from the insurance company, and they have a considerable career in their insurance and financial design.

In the case of raising investment funds from investors, the team leader paid an allowance of 6% prescribed in the business regulations. The team leader paid 6% of the investment funds he/she has retained (in the business regulations, 'new contract fees'); 1% of the investment funds held by the team leader of his/her affiliated team (in the case of business regulations, 'management fees'); 7% of the investment funds held by himself/herself as an allowance; 1.5% of the investment funds held by the team leader of his/her affiliated team or the senior team leader; 8.5% of the investment funds held by himself/herself as an allowance; 0.5% of the investment funds held by himself/herself as an allowance; 9% of the investment funds held by him/her as an allowance; 0.2% of the total amount of investment funds held by BI as an allowance; and 0.5% of the total amount of investment funds held by the fund manager as an allowance to the head of the branch; and 0.5% of the investment funds held by the president as an allowance.

0. On the other hand, in the case of attracting the team leader under the so-called "inducing allowance", 1% of the investment amount collected by the team leader at his/her own attraction for four months (the business regulations stipulate that it shall be referred to as "conducing fee"), and when it is confirmed that the investment amount was deposited into the company account from the first day of every week to the second day of the demand for the payment, the allowance was paid immediately.

3) The investment profit-making KH, even though it was unable to obtain all profits from investment in the investment issue for which the agreed investment period has arrived at, realized considerable profits from the investment, and accordingly, paid profits with the so-called ‘fluoring' as if it was paid the principal and fixed profits in accordance with the promise. The following investment issues, such as the Internet website (BR) and promotional video of H, etc., of the KH, promoted as if it had obtained a maximum of 224% investment performance from 7% without any loss (Evidence No. 9, 540 pages).

- Investment issues: BS, period of holding: 22 months: investment issue; period of holding: BT; period of holding: 14 months; period of investment: 0% investment issue: BU; period of holding: 14 months; period of holding: 14 months; period of investment: 26.5%: BV; period of holding: 25%: BV; period of holding: BW; period of holding: BW; period of holding: BW; period of holding: period of holding: 7% investment: BX; period of holding: 11 month; period of holding: 24%; period of investment; period of investment; period of investment based on the investor’s expectation and return rate of investment; and period of investment: 10%; BY; period of investment; period of holding: 24%; period of investment; period of investment; period of holding 1:24%; period of investment; and period of holding 1:5%; and 204%; period of investment budget; period of investment.

5) Combined management of funds: Notwithstanding the separate management agreement for each union's assets, the source of the property allocated to the union members under Articles 10 and 7 shall be the source of the union's assets less the operating expenses of the union under Articles 7 and 8 and the management, remuneration and performance remuneration under Articles 9 shall be deducted from the union's assets. In the formation plan of the private investment association, such as ES, the source of the property distributed to the union members shall be the residual property after deducting the investment profits, the contingent remuneration to the general partner and the operating expenses of the investment association shall be distributed in proportion to the union's equity shares of each union member (Evidence No. 3rd, 845 of the evidence record).

The rules of private investment associations incorporated into the contents of the contract include 1. Management and Operation Principles of the Association's Property. The executive member shall manage and operate the Association's Property under the name of the Association and be faithful to its management, such as keeping records and conducting inspections, etc. as independent accounts (Evidence No. 3: 1,850). The accounts in the name of 0 H are incorporated into the contents of the contract by dividing the amount of investment collected into an individual association, not a mixed account. The accounts in the name of 80 accounts as of March 23, 2015 are total 80 accounts (6 accounts, KV one, QV 41, and HW bank 32), and most of the accounts are transferred from the balance of the Association's own investment contract to the accounts designated by the Association. The rights to manage records No. 5, 281, 281, 481, 204, 3208, 417, 197, and 320

- In the case of an anonymous association under the Commercial Act, it shall be divided into a separate deposit account if it is intended to separate the investment amount into a separate deposit account as described earlier. However, in the case of an anonymous association, the company will once treat all the investment amount as a loan with respect to the part used for the purchase of the company’s assets, and then redeem the loan and manage it in a separate account of the association separately. As a result of the legal review on the undisclosed association after the separation of assets is completed, it is decided that the company should separate the relevant assets and accounts in advance during the period, and it is reasonable to refrain from forming the additional undisclosed association before the final association is dissolved (Evidence No. 9, No. 639 of the Evidence No. 9 of the Record). It is difficult to find out the cause of a difference between the balance of deposits in the account book and the effective fund control by taking account of the process of confirming the accounting management rather than the purpose of the fund control. This is because, even if an investor’s business is used from the standpoint of the company, it can be recovered from the amount of investment fraud.

6) Actual operation and so-called return of investment funds: (i) according to the detailed details of the investment fund management plan H 0 H 2.20 billion won as if the investment funds of other items were realized, even though no profit has accrued, (ii) approximately 2,63.2 billion won (i.e., investment funds of the undisclosed association 262,320,804,196 + sale price of 90,000,000 general items + approximately 256,622,000,003 + KRW 12,890,951,347) or KRW 700,000,000,000 (=6.75 billion, KRW 700,000,000,000) or KRW 1,63.5 billion,0000,0000,0000,000 won (=6.75 billion,000,0000 won).

0. The Investment Terms and Conditions of the CA (CAP transfer business) include that 18% of the earnings is paid after the end of the 9-month period. However, the CA (CAP transfer business)’s investment contract includes that 8 billion won of the guaranteed deposit is returned upon expiration of the 2-year contract period or upon termination of the agreement, and in itself, it does not notify investors of the difficulty in paying the earnings within 9 months (No. 9, No. 1,761 of the evidence record).0 H’s employees paid the profits of approximately 14 billion to investors around November 20, 2014 in the case of the category of the CA (CAP transfer business). DW, an employee of the CA, stated that “the profits of KRW 5 billion borrowed from the FCA and paid the profits of KRW 14 billion of the investment in any other item to the prosecution’s office.”

In the case of the Category 0 CM (N), it is recognized that the Defendants recruited KRW 2.918 billion from investors, and, on September 5, 2013, remitted the amount of KRW 2.9 billion to the KN account in the dispute resolution committee on September 5, 2013, the Defendants pretended to the form of investment, and used it as company's funds for about nine months, which was transferred to H account in the name of the K-holding bank and transferred on September 9, 2013.

0 Defendant 1 stated by the prosecution that “Although 14 items, such as CM (CN), BO (EV), and FB, have not been realized in normal profits, dedicated to the investment of other items of investment, and used 14 items of investment as funds to pay the above 14 items of investment.” The DG, an employee of the LAH in charge of the LAF, stated that “in fact, 80% of the 80% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20% of the 20s of the 20s of the 20s of the 20s of the 20s of the 11s of the 11s of the 11s of the 11s of the 30s of the 30s of the 30s of the 20s of the 30s of the 20s of the 20s of the 20s of the 3.”

0. As can be seen, H made a payment to investors as if it was realized by converting investments in other items, even though the actual profit did not accrue, and as seen above, it constitutes deception even where the source of principal and profit paid to investors is the company's profit (deductible cost) in that it agreed to pay the principal and profit with the residual property in the relevant item of individual investment contract.

7) The Defendants’ expertise and career and the criminal intent under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through a functional control based on the intent to coprocessing and the intent to jointly commit the crime. The so-called crime liability as a co-principal may be imposed depending on the case of a person who does not directly share part of the elements of a crime among the co-principal. However, for this purpose, when comprehensively taking into account the status, role, control or power over the process of the crime, etc. of the whole crime, it should be deemed that there is a functional control through an essential contribution to the crime rather than a simple conspiracy. In this case, the means and attitudes of the crime, the number and tendency of the participants, the time and character of the place of the crime, the possibility of contact with others and anticipated response to the crime, etc., and the possibility of contact with others during the process of the crime, even if there was no possibility that the conspiracy would have been any other functionally or sufficiently generated a crime, it should not be deemed that there was any possibility of such an individual crime.

0 In addition, in relation to accomplices who jointly commit a crime by not less than two persons, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is limited to the combination of intent to jointly realize a crime by two or more persons. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of intent successively or implicitly among several persons even though there is no process of the conspiracy, a conspiracy of conspiracy is established. A person who does not directly participate in the act of the conspiracy is held liable as a co-principal even if he/she does not participate in the act of the conspiracy. It is necessary to prove strict proof to recognize such conspiracy. However, if the defendant denies the intention along with

There is no choice but to prove indirect or circumstantial facts related thereto by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts related thereto ought to be reasonably determined based on the normal empirical rule based on a close observation or analysis history (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16347, Jan. 25, 2017).

0. However, in light of the following facts: (a) the Defendants was an expert in the position and career of the Defendants for a long time in the financial community; (b) the Defendants were well aware of the risk of the instant-related investment business, the unrealisticity of the profit structure, and the possibility of avoiding the return; or (c) at least dolusent intent; (b) furthermore, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants had been engaged in functional control by actively contributing to the crime rather than by simply taking advantage of the crime of this case. Some Defendants asserted that they had no criminal intent to obtain fraud in light of the fact that they invested by their relatives, but rather, they could be materials supporting the fact that they were aware of the structure that can be seen as certain profits through the return prevention.

Defendant A had been actively involved in the instant facts charged, such as IE, CM, GE, and the registration of the members of GU. 2. Defendant B had been paid 0.5% of the total amount of investment funds as allowances. Defendant B established CL with CK on January 12, 2007, and changed its trade name to H on August 25, 201, when it had been registered as the director on August 23, 201, and the representative director was appointed as 200, 30,000,000, 10,000, and 20,000,000, 20,000, and 10,000,000, and 10,000, 20,000, and 3,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00,00).

Defendant G, who was a head of the team team in March 2012 and was employed in the Dispute Resolution H on August 2012, 2012, was promoted to the head of the future strategic office (director), the head of the branch office around July 2013, the head of the branch office around July 2014, and the head of the five business headquarters around March 2015, and managed three branches under his control. Defendant G was engaged in financial consultation for about six years as LF designer before entering the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd.

(f) Additional determination related to the distribution of profit distribution among the CACA investment associations (tourist transfer business);

Although the Defendants asserted that there was no deception, such as actually investing in the pertinent business, and returning all the investments in accordance with the discontinuance of the business, the Defendants asserted that there was no deception. However, in addition to the judgment of the above sub-paragraph (e) above, the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the competent court, i.e., ① the funds of approximately 14 billion won are required around October 2014, which is the time when the proceeds agreed upon in connection with the CA (Transfer to Tourism), but the balance of the KCA H was much less than that of the KCAH. However, there was a lot of telephone calls for the term "EXIT" from the team leader around that time. ② Nevertheless, around November 20, 2014, the lower court’s determination that the principal and earnings of CAF investment associations were returned to approximately 690 investors in relation to the transfer of the investment fund (such as CFCH and CAF investment associations) and that it is difficult to view that the above period overlaps with the pertinent CCAF CH and investment associations (GF).

G. Defendant B invested in the form of a loan on September 5, 2013, but recovered the investment amount on September 9, 2013 due to the representative director’s attachment, etc., and the final suspension of the CN project on June 5, 2014, Defendant B returned all the investment amount to investors during the period from June 5, 2014 to June 9, 2014. However, in addition to the judgment of the above paragraph, Defendant B asserted that there is no deceptive act. However, considering the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court, ① the representative director was dismissed for 20,000 won, and only 3 ZG was invested in the relevant project, and the representative director was found to have not been a witness, and ④ the amount of the investment amount collected to KG and 40,000,000,000 won was collected by the first 24,000,000,000 won.

H. Defendant B asserted that there was no deceptive act or deception by deception because it was not anticipated at the time of solicitation of investment funds under the pretext of sales agency fees. However, in addition to the judgment of the above paragraph (e), the circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the trial court in addition to the judgment of the above paragraph (e), i.e., (i) CTY, a foundation, stated that the prosecutor’s office had already agreed to return the investment funds under the pretext of sales agency fees around April 2015; (ii) the relevant time of raising investment funds from May 7, 2015 to June 23, 2015; and (iii) the execution of investment funds for the target project was made from April 23, 2015, before the date of receiving the sales agency fees, from July 15, 2015 to March 23, 2015, the lower court is justified.

I. Defendant B asserted that Defendant B did not commit deception by means of deception, such as the fact that the director of LGH, who had decided to sell shares through the IZ, left the shares due to the depression with the management of the management. However, in addition to the above judgment, it cannot be found at all that the circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court, i.e., the contact with the LH director that Defendant B decided to sell shares, ii) stated that the IZ did not receive any written or promise from LH in connection with the purchase of shares, iii) the IZ returned KRW 45 million on the day on which it was returned as a brokerage commission, which appears very exceptional.

(j) In addition, as seen above, the instant fraud is a large-scale financial fraud crime, and its organization and systematic collective execution, which is the premise of the specific deception against individual investors, becomes the core of the execution of the crime as a deception. Therefore, even if the crime was specified as stated in the instant facts charged, it does not seem to have impeded the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense.

(k) Therefore, the above defendants' assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles on this part is without merit.

4. Ex officio determination on some frauds

A. We examine ex officio the facts of the judgment of the court below. Since the number 15 (customer G), 126 (customer F), 7 (customer C), 43 (customer A), 80 (customer D), 107 (Consumer G), 110 (Customer E), 199 (Customer E), 10), 731 (customer E), 85 (15), 126 (customer F), 7 (5), 1259 (line 18), 128 (5) listed in the attached list of crimes) listed in the attached list of crimes (8), 43 (customer C), 83 (customer D) listed in the attached list of crimes (8), 1259 ( Customer F) listed in the attached list of crimes (8), 209 (Customer 209) listed in the attached list of crimes (8), and 304) listed in the attached list of crimes (hereinafter referred to as 305) recorded in the attached list of offenses, there is no possibility that the above Defendants may have an effect on the above facts of fraud.

B. In addition, according to the records of this case, the customer column 605 Nos. 605 in the separate sheet (7) of the crime column of the judgment of the court below is acknowledged as having indicated the name of HT, which is the core element of the crime of this case, which is the defendant B's spouse. In light of the relation, the data submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts of deception or causation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, it shall be reversed

5. Determination on Defendant H’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the matters that are the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, based on the statutory penalty. However, considering the unique area of the sentencing of the first instance, respected under the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct administration taken by our Criminal Procedure Act, and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of the first instance is deemed to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the matters and the sentencing guidelines, etc. specified in the first instance court’s sentencing deliberation process, or the appellate court’s sentencing determination is deemed to have been exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, or it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the first instance, which is unfair to maintain the first instance sentencing in full view of the materials newly discovered in the appellate court’s sentencing deliberation process (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015).

If there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances to newly consider sentencing in the trial against the defendant, and the motive and background of the crime of this case, their attitudes and circumstances after the crime, etc. are comprehensively taken into account all the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence imposed by the court below cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable. Thus, the above defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

6. Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendant H’s appeal is without merit. On the other hand, Defendant B, C, D, F, and G violated the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized Receipt of Claims by Defendant A, B, D, F, and G, Defendant B’s violation of the Act, and Defendant B, C, D, F, G, and I’s Criminal Procedure Code No. 15 (Consumer G), No. 126 (Consumer F), No. 7 (5) [Attachment 7], No. 605 (Consumer HT), No. 43 (8) [Attachment 7], No. 800], and No. 93 of [Attachment 1], and No. 1] of [Attachment 3], and No. 43 of [Attachment 5]’s [Attachment 2]’s [Attachment 3]’s [Attachment 3]’s [Attachment 4]’s [Attachment 3]’s [Attachment 3]’s [Attachment 5]’s [Attachment 1]’s [Attachment 10, No. 195(Consumer 5]

【Discriminary Judgment】 Summary of Criminal Facts and Evidence

(3) The summary of the evidence of this court is as follows: ① Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud 1; 15 (Consumer G), 126 (5) Nos. 7, 405 (7), 80 No. 40), 80 (customer A), 104, 110 (customer C), 199, 500, 5000, 2000, 2000, 2000, 1500, 4000, 2000, 3000, 400,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,000).

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

0 Defendant A, C, D, E, F, G, and I: Article 44 Subparag. 1 and Article 11 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of running a financial investment business without authorization, a choice of imprisonment), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (each fraud, and each choice of imprisonment)

00 Defendant B: Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 11 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act; fraud related to investment issues related to investment issues, and distribution of profits from CA investment associations (tourism) and CA investment associations; each choice of imprisonment); Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act / [the fraud related to CM private investment associations (CN); fraud related to CR investment associations (CR sealing); fraud related to CV investment associations; fraud related to CV stocks related to the CV investment resolution plan; each choice of imprisonment];

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and I: Reasons for sentencing under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Reasons for common consideration:

0 The financial fraud crime is a serious crime that threatens the freedom and order of transactions based on trust as well as private autonomy. The victims are most economically weak, and if such a crime is repeated, it causes enormous damage to the national economy. In addition, with the funds raised through a new crime, the victims of the previous case are expected to commit a new crime, i.e., compensation to some victims of the previous case, i., a more additional crime, and thereby, promoting conflicts among the good ordinary people. The Defendants abused the expectations of the ordinary people who developed the low interest rate era, led to the abuse of the expectation of the ordinary people who developed the low interest period, and led them to the efforts for employment and new career. Moreover, the circumstances should also be taken into account that it is difficult to take the proviso to investigation or arrest the evidence at timely time due to the complicated circumstances.

0 The Defendants, while running a collective investment business without the authorization of the financial authority, committed a collective investment business, and operated the investment funds solicited from investors according to the investment contract, etc., by integrating all investment funds into the collect account, and used them by mixing them with the company’s operating expenses and investment funds. The Defendants, with the funds raised from the investment funds in a new investment item, induced investors to make new investments by pretending profits from the investment item, and inducing investors who received the profits to make new investments. As such, in light of the fact that multiple persons play a role as well as the fact that the victims committed acts of fraud in a systematic, systematic, and professional manner, as well as the fact that the victims committed acts of fraud repeatedly over a considerable period of time, the possibility of criticism and the amount of such fraud is extremely high. The victims’ profits that the Defendants received on the surface of the 0th victims were deducted under the name of fees, etc., but only up to KRW 140 billion,000,0000 x KRW 208,000,00).

0 According to the sentencing guidelines in 2018, the basic form of systematic fraud crime is from 8 years to 13 years, and the punishment of imprisonment is from 6 years to 10 years even if it is mitigated.

0. Other circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, status and degree of contribution of the Defendants, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., which form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case.

2. Grounds for individual consideration;

0 Defendant A: A was involved in the crime from the beginning of the crime, such as registration as a member of the EH private investment association, and the vice president of the management support division of the KH led to the crime of this case, such as taking charge of the execution of the company’s funds as the vice president, etc., and 0.5% of the total amount of investment was paid as allowances and

0 Defendant B: A general manager of H’s affairs, planning, organization, and led all of the crimes, and receiving large amounts of benefits, etc., appears to have accrued a large amount of benefits from the crime of this case. However, there are circumstances that could have been tried together with the crime for which suspended execution was finalized.

0 Defendant C and D were primarily involved in the crime beginning, such as registration as members of EH private investment associations, and contributed significantly to the execution of the instant crime while managing a branch office as the head of HH. The branch office affiliated with one’s headquarters was paid 0.5% of the branch investment funds belonging to one’s headquarters as allowances. In particular, Defendant D was working as the representative director of H.

0 Defendant E, F, and G contributed to the portion of the instant crime committed while managing a branch as the head of H’s headquarters. 0.5% of the amount invested by a branch affiliated with one’s headquarters was paid as allowances. Meanwhile, the period during which the head’s class was involved is relatively short. Defendant I: Only the Defendant appealed and does not sentence a heavier penalty than that of the lower judgment. Recognizing the instant crime, it is contrary to the recognition of the instant crime. However, as the vice president of the K in the business sector of the K in the K in charge of the company’s business sector, the K in charge of the company’s business affairs, etc., and 0.5% of the total amount invested was paid as allowances.

The non-guilty part 1, Defendant A, C, D, E, F, G, and I’s violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission

A. Summary of the facts charged

No person shall engage in a business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, reporting, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes, and agreed to pay the whole amount of principal or any amount in excess thereof in the future, and receive money under the pretext of deposits, installment savings, installments, deposits, etc.

Nevertheless, Defendant A, C, D, E, F, G, and I, unlike the general investment issues, intended to invite investment from many and unspecified investors on the ground of the investment issue of so-called ‘a fixed profit-making type' or ‘a fixed profit-making type' (the name of ‘a fixed profit-making type' is changed to ‘a fixed profit-making type') that guarantee the principal and fixed profit-making profit-making profit-making profit-making type, and they used the expression ‘a fixed profit-making type' that the business organization formally uses the expression ‘a fixed profit-making type' that is ‘a fixed profit-making profit-making type', but they intended to invite investment by publicizing that there is no risk of loss, thereby guaranteeing the principal and fixed profit-making profit-making type.

The Defendants conspired to make up “BO Investment Association (BP)” (BP) with investors, including BN, at a place where the location is unknown on November 23, 2012; H’s first private equity fund is KRW 5 million; the total amount of investment for the business is KRW 2.5 billion; and the company subject to investment is the “BP” (BP) with an explanation that the investment will be paid to the union at the time when the profit is realized; and from the same day, remittance of KRW 40 million from BN to September 1, 2015 from the same day, including remittance of KRW 40 million per annum from BN at the time when the profit is realized; and from the same day, from September 1, 2015 to September 1, 2015, agreed to pay in full or in excess of the principal amount in connection with the so-called “fixed profit-making profit-making type” investment as indicated in the attached Table (2) through (19) of the lower judgment.

B. Determination

However, as seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the above Defendants entered into a principal guarantee agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. As such, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts and thus, the acquittal is pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the above Defendants did not consent, the purport of the public announcement of the judgment of innocence is not to

2. Some of the facts charged in the case are as follows: Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, and I’s [Attachment 15] Nos. 126 ( Customer G), No. 7 ( Customer F), No. 605 (Consumer HT), No. 43 (Customer 80), No. 84 (Customer 8), No. 107 (Customer 10), No. 1999 (Customer 1999), No. 58 (Customer 10), and No. 731 (Customer 100), No. 1530 (No. 298) of the Criminal Procedure Act were to be established on the grounds that there is no evidence of fraud by the prosecutor as stated in the [Attachment 2] No. 35], No. 198 (Customer 2], No. 150 (Customer 150), and No. 38 (No. 298) of the [Attachment 2], No.

Justices Kim Gi-soo

Judges Chang Chang-hwan

판사김샛별

1) Some defense counsels are not subject to authorization under the Capital Markets Act, or each of the Defendants’ respective defense counsels conducted on the violation of the Capital Markets Act.

In light of the position of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the court below asserted that there is no obligation to obtain authorization under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, but it has

In the case of the issue of Indian Investment Association (ES or ET), the source of the investment is the source, and the substance of the instant private investment association is much more than 49 persons.

Since it is reasonable to see that the investment fund is offered by investors in the bank for the settlement of accounts, Article 6(5)1 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof.

(2) In the case of the items of anonymous association (BO or EU), the investment targets shall not be deemed to fall under the grounds for exclusion from collective investment under Article 6(1)7.

intent of investors in the same manner that the entity or business has been specified and is given daily management instructions from investors;

Since it can not be evaluated as belonging to it, it constitutes a collective investment as provided by Article 6(5) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.

As such, it pointed out that there is a legal risk of the authorization under the Capital Markets Act (RSK) and advises legal experts to seek advice.

The Accounting Revenue Review Report (No. 9No. 1,612, 1,621 of the Evidence Records) dated March 31, 2014 was prepared by the IO Accounting Corporation.

Furthermore, as seen in the judgment on the following frauds, the Defendants are running the financial investment business related to the instant crime.

As such, it is deemed that functional control through essential contribution was performed, there is a duty to obtain authorization for financial investment business under the Capital Markets Act.

Therefore, the above argument is rejected.

2) For reference, an act of fund-raising without obtaining authorization or permission under other laws or regulations, or without making registration, report, etc.

financial investment instruments, in the case of an authorized financial investment business entity, the trading of financial investment instruments;

A political party that has no possibility of undermining the exceptions under Article 103(3) of the Capital Markets Act or other sound trade practice in connection with any other transaction.

(1) Promising in advance to compensate for all or part of the losses that an investor may sustain, except where there is a reason to do so.

(3) The promise to guarantee an investor a certain amount of profit in advance.

(4) An act of an executive officer or employee of a financial investment business entity to provide a certain benefit ex post to an investor is prohibited from doing so.

section 55 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”) provides that a person who violates the above provision shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years, or a person who borrows not more than

section 445(10) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act;

3) EW, unlike at the prosecution stage, uses the expression “multi-misunderstanding” in the original trial court, which is not recognized, guarantees the finalized profits.

not transmitting e-mail, etc. in a meaning that they were given, nor did they receive any instruction from Defendant B, etc. in connection therewith.

A statement was made to the effect that a person voluntarily prepared and transmitted a phrase.

4)KIK, “Research on Actual Conditions of Domestic and Foreign Investment Fraud by Type”, “Criminal Policy Research”, Nos. 22, No. 4 (No. 88), 2011; KL outside, and KM moved;

광기, 패닉, 붕괴 금융위기의 역사』, 굿모닝북스, 2006; KN, KO 옮김, 『금융사기꾼』, 미래의창, 2011 등 참조.

5) Entrepreneurs, in the United States of America in the 1920s, KP was drafted to the multi-level financial fraud ranging from K Q Q to the multi-level financial fraud ranging from the United States. In the United States.

KR, which was sentenced to imprisonment of 150 years on account of the charge of fraud in 2009, was sentenced to imprisonment of 150 years, shall not be deemed to constitute a hedge fund (hedgefund) and shall not be deemed to have been sentenced to USD 65 Babal (70).

It also caused damage to the members.

6) In addition, Article 96 provides for the duty of care and duty of loyalty to the investment advisory business entity and discretionary investment business entity (Article 96), and in particular Article 98 provides for the investor's duty of care and duty of loyalty.

money, securities, or any other property (paragraph (1) 1), 'the act of receiving the custody and deposit of such money, securities, or other property', 'the act of receiving the custody and deposit of such property', 'the act of discretionary investment property

(2) The nature of the discretionary investment business entity or its interested parties as the property subject to transactions with the collective investment property, collective investment property, or trust property (paragraph (2) 5), or as the property subject to investment

An act of trading property (paragraph (2) 6), 'act of trading discretionary investment property', 'act of managing discretionary investment property for each investor', and collective investment of several investors' assets.

Designation or change of an investment trader, investment broker, or other financial institution which deposits the discretionary investment property (paragraph (2)7),

(2) An act delegated by an investor with respect to the act of depositing or withdrawing the discretionary investment property and the act of depositing or withdrawing the discretionary investment property (paragraph (2) 9(a) and (b)

An act is prohibited by stipulating it as a unsound business act dangerous to the so-called return prohibition (other than investment advisers or fund managers).

An act of having an investment advisory business or discretionary investment business to be conducted (paragraph (1) 3), a consideration other than the fees prescribed by the contract, shall be additionally paid to the person.

"Act" (Paragraph 1(4) and "Act" (Paragraph 2(4)) are also prohibited to harm the interests of specific investors to pursue their own or a third party's interests.

7) Otherwise, the rate of return on investment items in 2012 shall be 59.1% in the holding period of 10 months, 43.6% in the holding period of 9 months, 20,00% in the holding period of 7 months, and the holding period.

38.5% in the seven-months, 28.6% in the two-months, 13.6% in the holding period of 10 months, 59.1% in the holding period of 10 months, and the number of items invested in the year 2013.

The following rate shall be 20.5% in the retention period of 10 months, 8.75% in the holding period of 26 months, 3.9% in the holding period of 8 months, -12% in the holding period of 14 months, and 16 months in the period of 10 months.

10%, 12% in the holding period of 19 months, 24% in the holding period of 6 months, and 63.5% in the holding period of 12 months (Evidence No. 2, 623 pages, 9

1,540 pages);

8) Total amount of KRW 70.43 billion - approximately KRW 67.8 billion related to investment (=W of KRW 1.8 billion + KRW 1.8 billion + CG of KRW 10 billion + KY of KRW 6 billion + KY of KRW 6.0 billion + KZ

10 billion won + LB 9.96 billion won + LC 2.34 billion won + LD 1 billion + HK 5.5 billion won + HJ 5 billion won + HJ 5.0 billion won

+ CT T 100 million won + 2.63 billion won related to expenses, such as brokerage commission, etc. (=267 billion won + 2.3 billion won for brokerage commission + 2.3 billion won for customer invitation events.

30 million won

9) As seen earlier, most items were set at 20%.

10) The details of the establishment of a private investment association by the Bank of Bankruptcy H are ① ES (approval of the registration of the Small and Medium Business Administration on March 23, 2013): a general partner (BI), a member (BI, CK, B), and ②

GD (Approval for Registration with the Small and Medium Business Administration on April 16, 2013): General partner (BI), partner (BI, I, LE, C,L, D, FN, D), and IMO (Small and Medium Business Administration on May 22, 2013).

Executive members (BI), members (BI, I, A), and CM (Approval of Registration by the Small and Medium Business Administration on August 6, 2013): Executive members (BI), members of the Association (BI), and members of the Association.

(BI, D, C, I, LE, AU, FN, A, and DZ) and (5) GE (Registration Approval by the Small and Medium Business Administration on September 26, 2013): Executive member (B), members (B, DZ, A, LE, C, I, and I;

FN, D, AU), 6 GU (approval of the Registration of the Small and Medium Business Administration on October 15, 2013): The same shall apply to executive members (B), members (B, DZ, A, LE, C, I, FN, D, and AU).

(Evidence Records No. 1, 344 pages, No. 3, No. 1,836 pages)

11) However, Defendant D was the representative director of H on September 7, 2016 and resigned on April 1, 2019.

12) 158,638,90,00 won = 158,761,90,000 won - 123,00,000 won = KRW 25 million + KRW 30 million + KRW 10 million + KRW 10 million + 2 million.

Won + 5 million won + 2 million won + 2 million won + 1 million won + + 5 million won + 5 million won + 20 million won + 5 million won + 5 million won + 5 million won + 5 million won)

13) Of the sequence 360 (customerF), Nos. 829 (customerD), No. 830 (customerD) listed in the [Attachment 20] Crimes List (20)

14) KRW 12,477,000 = 12,50,000,000 = 12,500,000 - 23,000,000 (= KRW 3 million + KRW 10 million + KRW 10 million)

15) Attached List of Crimes (21) 1958 (customerD) listed in Attached Table 1958

16) 12,480,000,000 won* 12,490,000,000

17) KRW 275,616,00 = 277,20,000 = 1,584,000