All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legislative intent, etc. of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts by misunderstanding the fact or misunderstanding the legal principles (hereinafter “the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts”), Defendant 1, an individual who does not engage in the business of receiving similar messages, does not constitute a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentencing of the prosecutor’s court below is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 3 of the Regulation on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts and Subordinate Statutes provides that “No person shall engage in any similar receiving act.” Article 2 subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that “any person shall not engage in any similar receiving act,” and that “any person shall engage in a business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization, permission, etc. pursuant to other Acts and subordinate statutes and any other act of receiving contributions by promising to pay an amount in full or in excess of the amount of contributions in the future”

The legislative intent of prohibiting the act of receiving similar funds is to protect good traders and to establish a sound financial order by regulating the act of raising funds under the pretext of investments, deposits, etc. from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization, permission, etc. under related Acts and subordinate statutes.

In light of the legislative purport of the Regulation on the Receipt of Similar Goods and the meaning of the term “investment” under the provision of the law, the act of receiving funds through a transaction of goods is difficult to be deemed an act of receiving investment money and is merely a precluding or precluding a transaction of goods, and can be deemed an act of receiving similar money, which is prohibited by the Regulation on the Receipt of Similar Goods Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6241, Oct. 25, 2007; 2015Do14373, Sept. 8, 2016).