Defendant

A Imprisonment for one year, and Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

However, Defendant A.

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendant A is a person who had served as a representative director of Company B from July 6, 2018 to that date.

Anyone who intends to run an insurance business shall obtain permission from the Financial Services Commission.

Nevertheless, on February 27, 2019, the Defendant, without permission from the Financial Services Commission, run an unauthorized insurance business by issuing a fee for the guarantee of the guarantee of the guarantee of the guarantee of the guarantee of the guarantee of the pre-payment deposit of 2,220,000,000 won in Gangnam-gu Seoul and third floors, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and by issuing it in the name of the stock company B.

2. The representative director A of the defendant B, a corporation, committed the above violation in relation to the defendant's business at the time and place specified in Paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol regarding E;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement of the defendant A

1. A written accusation;

1. Existing letter of guarantee;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to partially certify registered matters;

1. Article 200 subparagraph 1 of Article 200 and Article 4(1) of the Insurance Business Act (Options of Imprisonment): The main sentence of Article 208 (1), Article 200 subparagraph 1 of the Insurance Business Act, and Article 4(1) of the same Act;

1. Defendant A who is subject to suspended execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendant B, Inc.: The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that Defendant A, with the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, led to the confession of the crime, and that Defendant A or Defendant B appears to have immediately failed to obtain specific profits from the crime of this case.

However, in the crime of this case, the face value of the guarantee certificate issued by the defendants is considerably high.

In addition, Defendant B seems to have violated the Insurance Business Act several times in the past while running the business of issuing a letter of guarantee by changing only the name of the same company at the same location.

(Original Name of Business: Company G). The criminal records of Defendant A, etc. in these circumstances.