A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

(c) Hararc records;

(d) Events, such as fraud or electronic records;

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

The Kim Jong-m (the prosecutor who participates in the investigation: Manosung (prosecution and the public trial), Park Jae-morry, Manosung (the public trial)

Attorney D, E, F, G (for all defendants):

January 31, 2020

Text

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is the former representative director (period of office from February 2, 2013 to December 2, 2017) of Company I (hereinafter referred to as “H”) that operates the virtual currency Exchange, who is a person in charge of the management of the company as the president and major shareholder of the board of directors. Defendant B is a person in charge of finance, such as Korean won and virtual currency management, expenditure, and settlement of accounts while working as “financial director of I”. Defendant C is a person in charge of the transaction of virtual currency through an automatic order program by opening K(LP account) in the trading system of “H” while serving as the “J team leader.”

【Criminal Background】

1. An outline of operation of the virtual currency exchange, such as "H";

A. The virtual currency exchange, including 'H’, includes the operation method of the virtual currency exchange (cambation exchange or virtual currency exchange business), is a business entity that receives trading orders from many customers, executes contracts, and mediates, liquidates, ships out, and sells and sells virtual currency through clearing, and establishes a market for trading or distributing virtual currency. The ordinary virtual currency exchange first allows members to deposit cash in the designated bank account along with the creation and registration of member accounts (ID) in the trading system, or bring virtual currency into the electronic wall of the Exchange, and then grants members the authority to fill the cash amount and the amount of virtual currency in the balance of the account of the relevant member in accordance with the electronic transaction system account books, so that the member can conduct virtual currency transactions through the balance system within the scope of the transaction.

Since virtual currency transactions are concluded by a member in the head office indicated in the computer system, and are completed by reflecting the orders submitted by the member in the balance of the relevant member, and it is not necessary to separately record the details of conclusion in the block chain (the distributed transaction account book of virtual currency) or to move cash in reality to complete the transaction, the Exchange is obligated to immediately deliver the assets indicated in the details of the balance in the computer system at the request of the member.

On the other hand, in the virtual currency exchange, according to the pre-determined rules, such as stocks, etc., as in the securities exchange, the prices entered into by individual competitive trade among members are determined as of each time and continuously changed. As such, the same kind of virtual currency exchange is also forming a different market price according to the situation of submission of the order by each member, and there is a means of prohibiting unfair trade, such as "an act disturbing sound trade order, such as "an act impairing the market price of virtual currency", and imposing sanctions, such as termination of the contract, against the violating member.

B. Members of the virtual currency exchange shall access the trading system provided by the Exchange and submit orders through each item of transaction on which information, such as market prices, quotations, trading volume, and conclusion strength, is posted. Information such as the conclusion of orders and balance between the members, etc. is recorded and stored solely on the electronic computer system of the Exchange, without being recorded in the actual financial account and block chain, is recorded and stored in the electronic data system of the Exchange. Therefore, members believe that members are actually submitted and traded as indicated on the screen, such as the title, title, and page provided by the electronic computer system, and that they are believed to have actually submitted and traded, and that they are willing to decide whether to submit orders for trading virtual currency, conclude contracts, and deliver them based on the information indicated on the screen for the provision.

On the other hand, in deciding whether to make transactions in the virtual currency exchange or whether to invest virtual currency and its size, the virtual currency has an inherent value, not as real goods, unlike gold, silver, rice, stocks, etc., and thus, its exchange value is emphasized. Therefore, it is inevitable to depend greatly on technical information in the market, such as trading volume, price trends, order situation, etc. provided by the Exchange. In addition, unlike the legal currency, the virtual currency does not guarantee a certain value in itself. Thus, it is important that the virtual currency can be rapidly realized at a favorable price for the virtual currency to be traded with sufficient trading volume within the specific exchange and the submission order quantity of members, and whether profit margin can be realized through appropriate price fluctuation (price fluctuation).

In addition, all information, such as the quantity of submission of trading orders of virtual currency, the distribution thereof, the quantity of orders concluded, and cumulative trading volume during a certain period, which shown in real time on the exchange screen, is an important factor in determining whether investors invest or not, virtual currency.

2. In the process of preparing for the opening of the 'H' and the Defendants of the Defendants’ crime, from June 2017, in order to compete with the existing large-scale exchanges that had been active at the time, members of 'H' provide services of trading virtual currency through the account under the name of 'H' established in cooperation with 'L', which is located in the U.S., while opening the 'H' market in Korea, as in the existing virtual currency exchange, and trying to discriminate by planning the listing of various kinds of virtual currency that are not handled by other exchanges, but in the event that new virtual currency that is not familiar with the general investors is listed, it is likely that the investors' attention will not be paid to them.

Accordingly, the Defendants focused on information such as liquidity and price fluctuation in the corresponding virtual currency when the investors choose an exchange as described in the above 1-B(b) or sell or sell individual items of virtual currency as described in the above 1-B, and agreed that the information can only be confirmed through the transaction screen, such as the window, which is the only means for the members to submit the order, by entering the value of the condition with a specific purpose into the transaction order automatically, creating and submitting the transaction order, and causing a large volume of transaction through the account, thereby inducing investors to join the “H” trade as a active member, or inducing existing members to participate in the trade on a large scale, thereby promoting increase in the revenues of “H” trading fees.

According to the above plan, the defendants created a balance as if assets such as virtual currency were stored in the computer without real assets, and entered the balance as if they were stored in the virtual currency exchange while carrying out the implementation practice of the "LP work" in accordance with the above plan. The defendants planned various methods for inducing the sale and purchase, such as ① a cross-border order, ② a bicycle order, ③ a cross-border order, ③ a 'Decoy order', and ③ a 'K' account, a 'LP account' ("LP account"), and then entered the same into the account as if the assets such as virtual currency were stored in the computer without the real assets.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Forgery, such as private electronic records, etc. through input of false asset information;

On September 24, 2017, the Defendants conspired to enter the amount of KRW 200,00,000 in the Korean won portion of the K account's asset possession information as if the assets were normally filled in the deposit account and then entered the amount of KRW 200,00,000 in the Korean won portion of the K account's asset possession information (KRW) into the K account, with the purpose of facilitating the normal processing of the H's business by creating false transaction information, such as trading volume and transaction price, in the K account through the LP work using the above K account, and providing customers with such transaction information. Despite the absence of the fact that the H deposited cash in the K account, the Defendants entered the amount of KRW 20,000,000 in the Korean won portion of the K account's asset possession information (KRW) at least once from that time to November 24, 201, and entered false information into the H's domestic currency record or its total amount of KRW 128,2000,000,00.20.

2. Uttering electronic records, etc. for creating false transaction information;

From October 24, 2017 to December 30 of the same year, the Defendants conspired to participate in 35 types of virtual currency transactions, including information on asset holdings listed in the [I] list of offenses, which were falsely entered in the K account at the above office around 38 billion won, by using asset information on the balance of virtual currency in the Korean won exchange market, and offered false transaction information to customers, so as to avoid conducting the normal business of H's 'H' operated by 35 times, including 30 billion won, 1) purchase and sale of the same account as described in the annexed list of crimes (II), 30 billion won, 25 billion won, 38 billion won, 4.5 billion won, 2.5 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 25 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 4.5 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 3.5 billion won, 4.5 billion won, 75 billion won, 2075 billion won, .

3. Fraud of selling the lowest sale of general members;

From October 24, 2017 to October 30 of the same year, the Defendants continued not only to purchase and sell virtual currency at the K account, but also to purchase and sell such currency at the K market, such as the purchase and sale of virtual currency at the same time with false and insufficient information on the quantity of won stock, as described in paragraph (2) above, but also to repeat orders such as the purchase and sale of such currency at the same time, and the sale of such currency at the same time as if the above K account were as a general member, so that it can enter into a trade with the non-coin and acquire the purchase price from the general members. However, the above non-coin sales order submitted by the Defendants through the K account was not only for the purpose of PE work, or for the purpose of H sale at the same time, but also for the purpose of H's purchase and sale, but also for the purpose of H's purchase and sale of the assets at the same time as the price of the real assets acquired at the same time, but also for the purpose of H.

In collusion, the Defendants did not inform the members of the fact that “H” Exchange was participating in the transaction on its own account without notifying the members of the fact that the member was involved in the transaction, and by deceiving the members by means of participating in the transaction as if he paid the selling order, and sold 26,058 members of “H,” the sum of 11,549.5219 members of “H,” such as the attached crime list (III), and acquired 149,103,067,270 won from the above victims and 149,103,067,270 won (05% of the transaction price) and the transaction fee (0.05% of the transaction price) and 74,51,53 won (0,17,618,803 won.

Judgment on admissibility

1. Defendants’ assertion of defense counsel

A. Evidence (Evidence Nos. 36, 86, 87, 213, 217, 266, and 372) seized the subject matter beyond the scope of the search and seizure warrant (Evidence List Nos. 36, 86, 87, 213, 217, 266, and 372) was stored in a cloud system0 cloud system by entrusting the custody of H database to 0, an external company. On May 9, 2018, the prosecutor issued a warrant of search, seizure, search, and verification from the Seoul Southern District Court judge of the Seoul Southern District Court (Evidence No. 21 of the Evidence List No. 21). However, since the search and inspection of the warrant requested by the prosecutor was entrusted to the outside, the said warrant includes an external company where the warrant was searched and verified, and the digital information extracted from the cloud database, which was executed in lieu of the 0 cloud system, was also excluded from the search and seizure warrant’s unlawful evidence.

B. Evidence (Evidence No. 74, 140, 144, 220, 221, 227, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 236, 249, 251, 252, 253, 254, 276, and 327) seized by a warrant of seizure, search, and verification that its effect has been lost (Evidence No. 74, 140, 220, 220, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 234, 246, 253, 254, 27) was seized by a judge of the Seoul Southern District Court on May 9, 201. However, the prosecutor prepared the aforementioned list of evidence to the effect that the seizure of the H database was prohibited as evidence of 2010,500.

A prosecutor searched the residence and motor vehicle of I Staff Q Q (Evidence No. 107) issued by a judge of the Seoul Southern District Court on May 28, 2018 (Evidence No. 107) from the Seoul Southern District Court for search and seizure and verification warrant (Evidence List No. 107). However, during the process of searching and printing out or copying specific electronic information after searching data stored in the above Nompt and cell phones and cell phones, the prosecutor did not guarantee Q Q’s right to participate in the search and seizure and did not issue a detailed list of printed or reproduced electronic information. The materials extracted from the above seized materials are inadmissible as unlawful evidence.

2. Prosecutor's assertion;

A. The H database that was seized upon execution of a warrant of search and seizure for an object beyond the scope of the warrant is materials to be seized as indicated in the warrant of search, seizure, and verification as of May 9, 2018. The data were seized after search and inspection within the place of search and inspection, body, and articles indicated in the above warrant.

In issuing the above warrant, the Seoul Southern District Court’s judge deleted the phrase “in the case of being entrusted to the outside” among the places of search and inspection, body and object columns, but the above warrant still contains the place of management and access of the server in which the seized objects are stored, or the office and computer room in the building where the server is installed are to be searched and inspected, which is limited to the physical location of the investigative agency to search and inspect. In addition, 0 cloud systems, which store H database, are managed and connected at the I office. Thus, there is no defect in acquiring H database by accessing the I office located at the I office located at the place indicated in the warrant and downloading it to the computer in the above office.

B. On May 10, 2018, the examination of evidence seized by the warrant of seizure, search, and inspection that lost its effect, was conducted under the warrant of seizure, search, and seizure. The first warrant was executed only for the PC employed by the team leader staff at the time of the first search and seizure, and then agreed with I to the remaining relevant employees by executing the warrant. Defendant C initially concealed the relationship between the company and K account. Defendant C’s ID was revealed in the course of the search and seizure, and the prosecutor was doubtful that Defendant C participated in the process of operating the K account. The prosecutor found out any trace of the details of the company’s access to the company’s RP account from the Nohbuk used by Defendant C on May 17, 2018, and received and seized the relevant materials from the Defendant C at will. The considerable part of the evidence asserted as unlawful evidence by the defense counsel cannot be deemed unlawful on the sole basis of the letter of confirmation that was obtained through voluntary submission to the Defendant C. 2018.

C. On May 28, 2018, the warrant of seizure, search, and verification, which was issued on the evidence that was seized in the state where the party’s participation was excluded, stipulates that Q’s main body should be seized; Q’s defense counsel already expressed his intent not to participate in the procedure; and Q Q’s written confirmation to the same effect.

3. Determination

A. Part of the evidence seized in the execution beyond the scope of the search and seizure warrant

1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts are revealed.

A) On May 9, 2018, the prosecutor filed a request with the Seoul Southern District Court for a warrant of search, seizure, and verification as follows (only relevant parts were recorded) (Evidence Nos. 3, 1691-1700 pages).

압수할 물건 [압수수색 장소 : | 주식회사 사무실] 별지(4) 기재 범죄사실과 관련된, -(주) 또는 (주) 운영자들의 자기계산으로 보유하고 있는 가상화폐의 잔고 및 거래 [가상화 폐 종류, 거래수량, 거래가(당시 시세), 거래대금, 거래 전자지갑 등 거래정보] 및 보관 내 역(자체 전자지갑 내지 외부 보관업체 포함) 관련 자료, 이상 위 자료에 관한 복사본 및 전산파일, 이메일, 메신져 포함 별지(4) 기재 범죄사실과 관련된, -2017. 10. 1.부터 2018, 5. 8.(또는 영장집행당일)까지 가상화폐 거래시스템상 이용자들의 ID(계정) 정보, 계정별 가입정보(인적사항, 주소, 전화번호, 등록 내지 연결된 은행·증권계 좌, 이메일 등 등록정보), 계정별 가상화폐 거래 관리내역 [가상화폐 종류, 거래수량, 거 래가(당시 시세), 거래대금, 거래 전자지갑 접속 IP 등 거래정보], 현금(고객예탁금 포함) 및 가상화폐 이체 입출고 내역(상대 계좌번호, 계좌주, 상대 전자지갑 포함), 거래소 법인 계좌의 거래내역(잔고 포함), 가상화폐 입출고 내역, 거래시스템 접속 IP -2017. 10. 1.부터 2018. 5. 8.(또는 영장집행당일)까지 거래시스템 관리자(거래소 또는 게 래소 운영자들이 자기계산으로 거래한 계정 포함)가 시스템상 접속 입력한 명령어 등 내 역, 접속 로그기록, 거래시스템 접속 IP, 거래소 또는 거래소 운영자들이 자기계산으로 게 래한 계정의 가입정보(인적사항, 주소, 전화번호, 등록계좌 이메일 등 등록정보), 위 계정 의 가상화폐 거래 관리 내역 [가상화폐 종류, 거래수량, 거래가(당시 시세), 거래대금, 거래 에 이용된 전자지갑, 접속 IP 등 거래정보 등], 현금(고객예탁금 포함) 및 가상화폐 이체· 입출고 내역(상대 계좌번호, 계좌주, 상대 전자지갑 포함), H 거래시스템 관련자들이 업무 용으로 사용 중인 IP 정보 -이상 위 자료에 관한 복사본 및 전산파일, 이메일, 메신저 포함 ※ 가상화폐 거래시스템의 데이터베이스를 직접 확인할 필요성이 있어, 가상화폐 거래시스 템의 일시 정지도 예상됨 위 각 자료가 저장 수록된 컴퓨터(노트북 컴퓨터 포함), 서버 등 전산망 장비, 외장하드디스 크 등 외부저장 매체, USB 등 이동식 저장장치, 녹음기, 블랙박스 등 통신 및 전자기기

수색·검증할 장소, 신체 및 물건 | 주식회사 사무실 및 전산서버 -서울 강남구 M | 주식회사 사무실 및 전산 서버가 보관되어 있는 장소 -본건 범죄사실 관련된 (주) 회사 전자메일, 메신저, 전자결재문서 등 '압수할 물건'이 제 장되어 있는 서버를 관리 접속하거나 서버가 설치된 사무실, 전산실(외부에 위탁한 경우 외부 업체 포함) 피의자들의 신체 및 소지품, 피의자들 명의로 등록되어 있거나 이들이 전속적으로 사용하고 있는 차량 위 압수수색 현장에서 위 회사 관련자들이 '압수할 물건'을 고의적으로 은닉, 훼손하려고 하는 경우, 압수할 물건을 확보하기 위하여 위 회사 관련자들의 신체, 소지품

B) On May 9, 2018, the Seoul Southern District Court judge issued a warrant of search, seizure, and verification (hereinafter referred to as “instant warrant of search and seizure”) by restricting the place, body and articles to be searched and verified, and restricting the search and inspection, and issuing a warrant of search, seizure, and verification (hereinafter referred to as “instant warrant of search and seizure”) to the server in which “the Seoul Gangnam-gu Office and the computer server are stored, the electronic mail of the I company related to the instant criminal facts, the Messen, the Messen, the electronic filing document, etc.” is stored, or the server is installed, or the office, the computer room (including the office, etc. entrusted to the outside) is installed.

C) At around 10:30 on May 10, 2018, the prosecutor executed six prosecution investigators, including S prosecution investigators, and six digital forensic investigators, in accordance with the instant search and seizure warrant, and conducted digital sirens by seizing the computers, Nowon-gu, cell phoness, etc. of executives and employees kept in I offices. At around 18:00 on the same day, S prosecution investigators came to know that the data recorded in H’s transaction details, etc. are kept in the cloud system, and then, the S prosecution investigators came to know that the data recorded in H’s transaction details, etc. were kept in the cloud system, the prosecutor conducted the work by having 0 cloud systems enter the ID and password of the cloud system account into the cloud database stored in the Cloud system.

However, when the volume of H database stored in the Cloud System was neglected and time was spent for transmission for a long time, all other investigators except the S prosecutory investigators and two digital siren investigators were returned to the Republic of Korea. While continuing to extract only the above people, the S prosecutory investigators decided to suspend data extraction work on May 10, 2018 with the approval of the prosecutor, and prepared a "written confirmation of suspension of seized articles" and signed by X (the vice president). The S prosecutory investigator received the "written confirmation of suspension of seized articles" and took measures to block the entrances of the I Games room where H database extraction work is in progress.

E) The contents of the “certificate of suspension of seized articles” are as follows (No. 9).

The Seoul Southern Site Inspection, Search and Seizure Warrant-Related (Warrant No. 2018-6012) of the Certificate of Suspension of Seized Articles requires a long time to extract and verify data from the virtual currency exchange database files managed by the "H", and confirms that the number of pressure will be suspended and resumed as follows: - the date and time of suspension of seizure: the date and time of suspension of seizure: May 10, 2018 - the detailed details: H: the time required for the data verification work on the data collection and the dmp files; the seizure will be suspended as the time is required for the data verification work; the schedule for collecting the DNA data will be re-scheduled at the time of occurrence of error after the verification of the materials; and the seizure will be resumed on the relevant day. Data subject to seizure: H database data:

F) On May 11, 2018, two digital siren-type investigators presented to X, etc. a “written confirmation of the suspension of seized articles,” prepared before the preceding date, and continued extraction operations for the H database in which the preceding date ceased to exist. During this process, some details of transactions in the K account were contained in digital sirens, but some of the seized articles to the same effect as the previous content at around 17:55 on the same day due to the lack of materials.

(3) No evidence records 1812 pages).

G) On May 14, 2018, May 15, 2018, May 16, 2018, and May 16, 2018, S prosecutory investigators prepared a “certificate of suspension of seized articles” and continued and suspended search and inspection by means of obtaining signatures from I’s executives and employees, and repeated the process of extracting H database from 0 cloud systems in the search and inspection continued on May 17, 2018, and completed the process of extracting H database from 0 Cloud systems, and seized electronic information (hereinafter “instant search and seizure”) by storing it in the external hard disc prepared on the I’s side (hereinafter “the instant search and seizure”). Specific determination was made.

A) Whether the articles to be seized are not subject to seizure

I’s H database extracted from the 0 Cloud System Account constitutes “goods to be seized” as information on K account, which is one of the accounts in which H manager’s own account trades, and the transaction and management details of virtual currency in the said account. In addition, the object column for seizure of the search and seizure warrant of this case stated that “the temporary suspension of the virtual currency transaction system is anticipated” is included in the item column for seizure of the search and seizure warrant of this case, and the search and seizure of the H database includes “I Co., Ltd. and computer server” in the place of inspection, body and article column. The search and seizure of this case was conducted at the office, and the said place constitutes an office in the said building that is connected to the Cloud System, which is the server where the “goods to be seized” is stored.

The search and seizure of this case was conducted in the first office from the search to the search and seizure. The fact that the cloud system server is not located in the Republic of Korea is remarkable in this court. However, the search and seizure of this case is executed not only by the aforementioned system server itself but by using electronic information stored in the said system as a computer of the search and seizure place connected to the said system. Therefore, it is difficult to evaluate the search and seizure of the electronic information stored in the said system as a search and seizure of an object that does not exist. Moreover, the phrase deleted upon the issuance of the search and seizure warrant of this case can not be interpreted as excluding the electronic information stored in the cloud system from the search and seizure subject to the search and seizure.

Thus, it is difficult to view the search and seizure of this case as the seizure of articles not subject to seizure. Accordingly, the Defendants’ defense counsel’s assertion on this part is rejected.

B) Whether the requirements for search and seizure of remote electronic information were satisfied

(1) The instant search and seizure can be deemed as one type of “the so-called remote digital information search and seizure”, which connects the relevant computer to the target computer installed at the initial search and seizure site and the other computer connected to the information and communications network, where it is possible to access and use the relevant computer, to search and seize the digital information stored in the relevant server by accessing the relevant computer to the relevant remote server.

(2) With the development of information and communications technology, only a computer system is in charge of entering and printing stored information in an enterprise or an organization’s office, etc. connected with each other, and the actual electronic information is stored in a separate server located within a remote area (domestic or overseas). In a case where search and seizure of remote digital information is denied, and where only the physical location of the system operation and manager is limited to the place of search and seizure based on the concept of the place of the existing remains, a suspect who requests a warrant is likely to delete or alter the relevant digital information. On the other hand, if the search and seizure of remote digital information is affirmed, it would be possible to permit the search and seizure of the relevant digital information, even if the relevant digital information does not exist at the place of search as indicated in the warrant, and thus, the meaning of specifying the place of search and seizure in the warrant would be difficult.

(3) While other countries such as the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Germany have prepared and operated standards such as laws and agreements, the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea emphasizes the necessity of legislation and continues discussions on institutionalization. However, the relevant laws and regulations so far have been discussed.

There is no fixed interpretation of the current Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, there is a conflict between the interpretation of the current Criminal Procedure Act and whether it is possible to allow search and seizure of remote electronic information, and whether it is possible to allow search and seizure of electronic information stored in the overseas servers. However, the theory recognizes the necessity of search and seizure of remote electronic information in consideration of the reality such as active, restrictive, and negative theory.

(4) We examine whether search and seizure of electronic information stored in the foreign server is possible with the instant search and seizure warrant. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deny that the instant search and seizure is inappropriate or procedurally insufficient.

(A) In practice, even though there is no express provision under the Criminal Procedure Act, it appears that the investigative agency is allowing the search and seizure of remote electronic data by taking measures to ensure procedural legality by being issued a warrant of search and seizure by entering the purport that “the digital information is seized by accessing the web site in question after printing out, copying, or photographing the digital information.” Furthermore, when a warrant of search and seizure stating the aforementioned purport is issued, the investigative agency may require the subject of the search and seizure to provide a ID and password capable of accessing the web site, and it can be interpreted that it can be included in the scope of “necessary disposition for the execution of the warrant of search and seizure” as stipulated in Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the search and seizure warrant of this case does not include the above content.

(B) The Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9747 Decided November 29, 2017 differs from the instant case and specific facts. The foregoing decision is a case involving: (a) access to a remote storage device; (b) access to the suspect’s e-mail-related electronic data that is stored at the search site by the investigation agency, such as a computer at the search site indicated in the warrant, in lieu of access authority to the suspect’s e-mail account; and (c) access to the remote storage device; and (d) access to the suspect’s e-mail-related electronic data stored therein, such as entering the suspect’s e-mail-related ID and password in a computer at the search site indicated in the warrant issued by the investigation agency in lieu of access authority to the suspect’s e-mail account; and (b) access to the search and seizure warrant of this case. However, contrary to the foregoing judgment, the warrant of search and seizure of this case does not contain any provision on the substitution of access authority to the 0 cloud system account by the court.

C. On May 10, 2018, the prosecutor commenced the instant search and seizure. A long time was required to transmit the H database stored in the Cloud System to a computer located in the I office. As such, the search and seizure was not completed on the same day, and the I’s executive officers and employees repeated search and seizure and continued until May 17, 2018 by preparing “written confirmation to suspend seizure” several times. However, in the process, the prosecutor did not request a separate warrant to obtain access authority from the I’s cloud system account as described in the foregoing paragraph. Moreover, the prosecutor’s search and seizure on May 10, 2018 does not appear to have been recognized that one executive and employee, at the time of commencement of the instant search and seizure, physically interfered with the prosecutor’s execution of search and seizure, or interfered with the execution of the instant search and seizure by accessing the Cloud System at any time after obtaining access to the Cloud System or by removing relevant materials. The prosecutor appears to have continued the search and seizure of the instant case by May 10, 2018.

(5) However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the instant search and seizure violated warrant requirement to the extent that it is deemed unlawful. In practice, an investigation agency appears to have written the execution method on the premise of the possibility of search and seizure of remote electronic information at the stage of requesting a warrant. However, as long as the current Criminal Procedure Act does not provide for the search and seizure of remote electronic information, the mere fact that the instant search and seizure does not include the aforementioned contents is insufficient to deem that the search and seizure of remote electronic information is entirely impossible.

B) In light of the purport of the aforementioned decision 2017Do977, in order for an investigative agency to seize and search a remote digital information, it should have access to the storage device in which the relevant digital information is kept, and have access to the storage device in a normal way by the person to whom the digital information is seized. If the investigative agency has lawfully obtained the ID and password of the account accessible to the relevant digital information, it may be possible to obtain and execute a warrant in lieu of the access right if the investigative agency has obtained in advance a warrant in lieu of the access right. If it is not so, it is impossible to obtain the access right from the person to whom the digital information is seized or a third party who is subject to seizure or a third party who manages the account available for access to the relevant digital information, to access the ID and password by inputting them to the investigative agency, or to obtain a ID and password from the investigative agency, as described in the open paragraph of the above paragraph (4) of the same Article, unless the person subject to seizure or a third party who manages the relevant digital information voluntarily submits the access right to the remote information search and seizure warrant.

C. In the instant case, even though H database was stored in the I Office and the 0 Cloud System, if it is deemed that the execution of the instant search and seizure warrant without any special indication, such as the access authority to the Cloud System Account, is possible, it would not be subject to sanctions for enforcement beyond the bounds permitted in the warrant. Furthermore, an investigation agency has the authority to access, without any special restriction, electronic information stored in the outside by the person against whom the warrant was served, via an information and communications network via a computer located in the place where the person against whom the warrant was served was served, for the reason that it is doubtful that the electronic information to be seized is being stored. As seen earlier, the prosecutor did not obtain prior authority to access the 1-0 Cloud System Account, and did not obtain a warrant in lieu of the access authority, and there was no fact that the prosecutor planned to search and seize remote electronic information and requested a warrant stating the contents of restrictions on the execution method.

Thus, the search and seizure warrant itself cannot be interpreted by the investigative agency itself as having the authority to access the O Cloud System Account. As necessary for the enforcement of Article 120 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the authority to request the I’s ID and password, etc. is not granted to the I’s officers and employees. Ultimately, unless a separate warrant in lieu of access authority is issued, the investigating agency should arbitrarily obtain the above information from the I’s officers and employees, and during that process, there should be no circumstances contrary to or infringing on the I’s free will.

(D) On May 10, 2018, S prosecutory investigators commenced the search and seizure of the instant case, obtained a ID and password from U, V, and W to enter 1-0 cloud system accounts, allowing them to access 0 cloud systems, and get H database down by using computers located in one office. The witness Y followed the search and seizure order in this court, and followed the direction after the search and seizure was conducted. It was so far as it was possible for S prosecutory investigators to properly ascertain whether this warrant is within the warrant range, and if it was within a certain atmosphere, to cooperate and cooperate with our employees, and to ensure that they should not freely obtain access authority when they cooperate with the 4th Cloud system. This is not a threat to the search and seizure of a witness (so-called 4th anniversary of the fact that eths and eths and eths and eths that have obtained access authority.)

However, each H database extraction work, however, participated in majority of the attorneys-at-law in the law firm and participated in the prosecution investigators and digital forensic investigators, and conducted I directly by the executives and employees of the law firm. Specifically, in consultation with the law firm attorney-at-law, I entered the ID and passwords of the O Cloud System Account, and H database stored in the said system was processed by entering a specific order, not all the electronic information stored in the cloud system, into the cloud system, and only the data corresponding to the articles to be seized as stated in the instant search and seizure warrant were extracted. Meanwhile, the investigation authorities conducted the instant search and seizure warrant by preparing several times the “written confirmation of the suspension of pressure water.” In light of this point, it seems that the investigation agency’s arbitrary act is inappropriate in the process of obtaining the access right to the instant search and seizure, but it appears that it did not interfere with the H’s own operation. However, it is insufficient to deem that the investigation agency’s voluntary act was inappropriate, such as intimidation, to the extent that it did not interfere with the execution of the search and seizure of this case.

(b) Even if the search and seizure of this case may be deemed to have been partially exceeded the scope stipulated in the warrant, it appears that the investigative agency could obtain terVs sufficiently H if it was immediately issued a separate warrant. In particular, considering the conflicting theories as to whether to permit the search and seizure of remote digital information and the reality that there is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult to view the illegality of the acquisition process to the extent that the search and seizure of this case was deemed to have been deprived of the warrant requirement stipulated in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act.

1) Relevant legal principles

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea declares due process and the principle of warrant requirement with respect to search and seizure. Accordingly, a warrant of search and seizure is prohibited from being issued at the discretion of an investigative agency. The search and seizure warrant includes the name of the suspect, the place, body, goods to be searched, the date of issuance, the effective period, the reason for search and seizure, etc. In addition, Articles 219 and 114(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Articles 58 and 107 of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure shall also be stated in the request for the warrant (see Articles 219 and 118 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 219 and 125 of the Criminal Procedure Act). In addition, the Criminal Procedure Act also provides for the presentation of the warrant (see Articles 219 and 125 of the Act), restrictions on night execution (see Articles 219, 121, and 122 of the Act), prior notice of participation and participation right of the parties (see Articles 219, 219, and 123).

2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court, the following facts are revealed.

A) On May 10, 2018, S Prosecution investigators commenced the instant search and seizure under the direction of a prosecutor’s execution. From May 10, 2018 to May 17, 2018, the search and seizure suspension and continuation were repeated due to the extraction work on H database from May 10, 2018 to May 17, 2018.

B) On May 11, 2018, S Prosecution investigators found the existence of K account in H database, and found documents “written request for payment of the asset for the operation of H market creation account” on May 14, 2018, and doubtful the operation of the electronic computer system. S Prosecution investigators are doubtful as they participated in the process of operation of the K account by Defendant B, who is described as the person who prepared the said written request for payment, referring to the Defendant C, and received confirmation from Defendant B and C. During the process, S Prosecution investigators refused the participation of the attorney-at-law in the law firm territory, but the said attorney-at-law refused the participation, and entered the same purport in the “written confirmation for suspension of seizure” written on May 14, 2018 (Evidence 3: Title 190-1995).

C) On May 17, 2018, S Prosecution investigators completed H database extraction work, and seized a copy of the HD (CB copy) where relevant electronic information is recorded as a result of the instant search and seizure warrant, and additionally seized one copy of the HP transaction electronic information, and one copy of the C/C personal Macok’s logical image (Evidence No. 4, 2219-221 page).

D) However, according to the “written confirmation of discontinuance of Seized Articles” as seen earlier, the purport of the search and seizure is only to suspend (suspension) on the ground that the data extraction on H database was required for a long time, and there is no further statement on the purport that a prosecutor may further seize one copy of the HP transaction electronic data seized on May 17, 2018, and one copy of the Cpl individual Macok’s logical image.

3) Specific determination

A) Although the term of validity of the warrant is stipulated in the warrant issued by a judge, there is doubt as to how to determine whether to terminate the warrant and how to distinguish between the termination and the suspension of the execution of the warrant if the investigation agency started the execution within the term of validity. In particular, when the execution of the warrant of search and seizure is completed, a separate warrant is required for further search, while the execution is in need of a separate warrant for further search.

As the execution of a warrant of search and seizure is merely a temporary suspension of the execution of a warrant of search and seizure, the execution is continued during the period of suspension, and there is only one execution before and after the suspension, which does not require a separate warrant. However, there is no provision on the completion of the execution in the warrant of search and seizure, and there is no express provision on it under the Criminal Procedure Act or rules on criminal procedure. Considering that there is a great need for flexible execution of a warrant of search and seizure conducted in order to secure core evidence at the initial stage of the investigation, it can be deemed that there is a primary discretion of the investigative agency as to the termination

However, inasmuch as the principle of due process, warrant spirit, search and seizure is in essence a so-called large-scale compulsory disposition that infringes upon the State’s rights, such as an individual’s body, property, etc., the court should determine whether the execution of search and seizure has been actually terminated by considering specific and comprehensive aspects of the situation at the search and seizure site, the status of the objects to be seized, the progress of execution, and the attitude of the person subject to

B) In light of the specific progress of the search and seizure of this case as follows, it is difficult to view that the execution of the remaining articles to be seized, excluding H database, has been completed merely by the statement of “written confirmation of suspension of the seizure” as follows.

(1) On May 10, 2018, S Prosecution investigators commenced the execution of the instant search and seizure. When it is anticipated that time would be long to eliminate and extract the H database stored in the cloud system, S Prosecution investigators drafted a “written confirmation of suspension of search and seizure of H database” with the prosecutor’s approval to suspend the search and seizure of H database.

(2) On the first day of the instant search and seizure, several prosecution investigators, including S prosecutory investigators, commenced the execution of the instant search and seizure and digital sirens by seizing computers, mobile phones, etc. of I and executives and employees as well as H database, but most of them were completed at around 18:0 on the same day. Since the search and seizure of H database was not completed, S prosecutory investigators and digital sirens were left in the office continuously.

(3) Even in search and seizure conducted from May 11, 2018 to May 17, 2018, the next day of the date, the SS prosecution investigators and two digital siren investigators continued to extract H database work with I’s officers and employees.

(4) Although the “written confirmation of the suspension of seizure” as of May 10, 2018 refers to the purpose of suspending the search and seizure of H database, according to the investigation report prepared on May 5, 2018 by the S prosecutory investigator, it is stated to the effect that “Y representative, etc. shall preferentially collect and seize data (data) of the electronic computer system (DB) and “after executing a warrant regarding the PC used at the team leader level only, the rest of the relevant employees shall execute the warrant later (No. 4 evidence records No. 1703 pages).”

(5) Even if the instant search and seizure was not clearly explained to the Y et al. that the execution of a warrant against an officer’s computer, etc. was not completed differently from the above investigation report, the main reason why the instant search and seizure was prolonged is that the time was required for extraction work for H database, and thus, the remainder of the articles to be seized except for H database was not specifically explained.

(6) On May 10, 2018, the “written confirmation of the suspension of seizure” was prepared, and the first day of the commencement of the instant search and seizure, and the scope of the I’s executives and employees involved in the crime was not fully revealed, so it seems difficult to execute the search and seizure against all executives and employees.

(7) During the process of H database extraction work, the existence of the K account and the details of P E-mail were discovered, and the circumstances in which Defendant C was involved in the operation of the K account were also discovered. At the same time, the media, including H operated by I, reported the suspicion of credit transactions with the effect that the virtual currency exchange, including H, did not hold virtual currency and operated the Exchange only by the computer, and accordingly, negative public opinions such as regulation of virtual currency and the demand for the investigation of the operating entity of the Exchange, etc. Accordingly, the need to seize the Defendant C’s E-ray was sufficiently existing, and the P-mail owned also included the material evidence to clearly clarify the above suspicion along with the H database. The part of the evidence seized in the state in which the participation of the parties was excluded.

1) Relevant legal principles

The warrant principle and due process should be complied with, even in cases where a storage device or hard-to-date, or a hard-to-printed form (hereinafter referred to as “duplicate”) is transferred to an investigation agency office, etc. to search and output the storage device or hard-to-date, including digital information, due exceptional circumstances are recognized to make it impossible to determine the scope in the course of search and seizure of storage device or considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of search and seizure. In such a case, the search and seizure cannot be deemed lawful unless special circumstances exist, such as where the party against whom the search and seizure was conducted (hereinafter referred to as “the party against whom the seizure was made”) or his/her defense counsel are guaranteed an opportunity to participate, and where appropriate measures are taken to prevent arbitrary reproduction of digital information irrelevant to the suspected facts. If such measures have not been taken, the warrant principle and due process should be complied with, such as where the party against whom the seizure was made clearly expressed his/her intention not to participate, or where the purport of guaranteeing the party against whom the seizure was conducted cannot be deemed substantially infringed, in light of the nature and content of the process.

2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed from the evidence lawfully adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor did not comply with the warrant requirement principle and due process under the Criminal Procedure Act, since Q did not provide Q’s opportunities to participate in the search and seizure of Q’s cellular phones and Nowon-North Korea.

A) On May 28, 2018, the prosecutor obtained a warrant of seizure, search, and verification (limited to paragraph (c)) from a judge of the Seoul Southern District Court to seize Q’s cell phones and Not North Korea (hereinafter “instant warrant of seizure and seizure”). On May 30, 2018, Q’s cell phone and Not North Korea were seized according to the instant warrant of seizure and seizure. In the item column to be seized of the instant warrant of seizure and seizure, the content that Q’s cell phone and Not North Korea need to be verified directly by using the I’s program (Evidence 4: 268-2676 of the evidence record), including “the scheduled seizure of Q’s cell phone and Not North Korea,” and it appears that Q had not already participated in the process of collecting Q’s cell phone and Not Korea. Accordingly, Q did not have made a statement to the effect that Q had no opportunity to verify that Q’s cell phone and Not North Korea were seized and stored (Article 16).

C) The prosecutor confirmed that Q entered a written confirmation at the investigative agency’s office that Q would not take part in the disciplinary procedure against cell phones and Nopt in the video that already taken the process of collecting the relevant seized article, and that he/she would thereafter submit relevant data (28,29 pages of the written opinion submitted by the prosecutor on July 9, 2019). However, the prosecutor did not submit relevant data by the date of closing argument of this case.

D) Meanwhile, on June 4, 2018, Q was investigated as a witness by the prosecution, and was arrested as a suspect thereafter, and was examined on June 19, 2018. On the other hand, on June 19, 2018, the prosecutor confiscated two USB from Q on a voluntary basis (Sandisk Cruzer Blade 64GB) from Q on June 19, 2018, and Q has clearly expressed that Q would not observe the submission of information storage device and the confirmation of whether to witness the requisition (Evidence record 5°3097-3101 pages).

3) Therefore, the prosecutor’s search and seizure of Q’s mobile phone and Nohbuk on May 30, 2018 constitutes illegally collected evidence since the warrant requirement was violated. As such, the evidence that cannot be used as evidence of conviction as evidence of guilt cannot be used as evidence of conviction even if the Defendants consented to the examination of evidence as evidence. Moreover, the examination of evidence as to the evidence that has already been investigated cannot be withdrawn, and if it is found that the evidence that has already been investigated was inadmissible as evidence, the court must decide to exclude all or part of the evidence from the evidence pursuant to Article 139(4) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure. As such, the court shall determine the issue of calculating the total liability (as of 2018-01-0100.0.0.0.) among the documents “the total liability calculation (as of 2018.0.0.0.0.0.)”

4) However, even if each of the above documents were collected in violation of the warrant requirement, one copy (Evidence No. 259) of Harker's strategy and issue sharing (Evidence No. 259) is the same as one copy (Evidence No. 251) of the evidence duly seized by Defendant C on July 16, 2017, which is evidence No. 251. Such defects cannot be deemed to have essentially infringed on the rights or legal interests to be protected under the procedural provision, rather than in such a case, it would be contrary to the principle of due process and substantial truth-finding, and thereby, it would be difficult for the prosecutor to acknowledge the admissibility of evidence of each of the above documents' evidence collection statement No. 1, which is evidence No. 250 (Evidence No. 1, 2018-01-010) and the evidence collection statement No. 2, which is evidence of each of the above documents' evidence collection (Evidence No. 4, which is evidence collection).

1. Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion

(a)the point of a pre-record writing and an electronic recording event;

1) Information entered into the K account is not “electronic records on rights, obligations, or certification of facts.”

The same value as that stated in the attached list of crimes (I) in which the Defendants entered into the K account in a passive manner is not an asset owned by the Defendants, but merely a set of the limit of the order that I submit through the automatic order program. If H members deposit their virtual currency or won into the K account in the K account, I shall enter the virtual currency point corresponding thereto into the virtual currency transaction account in the name of H members. However, it is not only impossible to enter the K account in real time after reflecting the real-time change each beginning, and it is unnecessary not to enter it into the K account. Points points included in the virtual currency transaction account of H members indicate the quantity of the virtual currency or won refund claim against I by the member, but it does not constitute "electronic records on the rights, obligations or certificates of fact" related to assets, as stated in the attached list of crimes (I).

2) It cannot be viewed as “comforcing” with the input of a limit value.

I was designed to calculate the quantity of virtual currency and won currency possessed by I to be returned to the customer as automatic order order, and submit orders only within the scope of the order. As such, I could not sell or purchase the virtual currency not owned in Korean won. As long as it trades with the virtual currency actually owned in Korean won, it is natural that the value of the K account does not coincide with that of the actual asset held in the K account. It cannot be said that this is a good example.

3) There was no purpose to mislead the Defendants into performing one’s business affairs.

The Defendants submitted orders by using automatic orders to K account in order to resolve liquidity supply and rear-up phenomenon in H’s assets and rear-up management. However, the Defendants set the limit value of orders that K account may submit as double safety devices to prevent unexpected excessive orders from sources. It cannot be deemed that there was an intention to excessively handle the Defendants’ administrative affairs.

4) The K account does not constitute the electronic records of “other person”. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant A who was the representative director at the time of the instant case cannot be deemed as the electronic records of “other person”, and Defendant B and C who entered the limit value into the K account with his approval cannot be deemed as the case where information was entered into the electronic records of other person.

B. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud

1) There is no fact that I has traded virtual currency or won currency not owned.

I sold 1,549 out of 14,183 bitcos acquired until December 31, 2017, which were acquired from the NExchange at the early opening of H, other than bitcos purchased from H members, and bitcos purchased from H in the H’s won market. Since I sold 1,549 out of 14,183 bitcos acquired from H members until December 30, 2017, I sold bitcos owned by H members. I had bitcos more than the quantity to be returned to H members from October 24, 2017, the date of the crime described in the facts charged.

AA accounting corporation's results of the actual inspection of virtual currency and won currency around January 2018, it is confirmed that I sold the retained virtual currency and purchased the virtual currency in Korean won.

I was designed to calculate the quantity of virtual currency and won currency possessed by I, excluding the quantity that I should return to the customer as automatic order order fishing, and to submit orders only within the scope of the order. As such, I could not sell or purchase the virtual currency that it did not hold.

I was in possession of virtual currency and won currency more than the amount to be returned to H members, so I immediately responded to the request for withdrawal and release of H members.

H Members deposited won into the account under the name of H so that H does not make transactions in Korean currency, or deposited into the account under the name of H so that H does not make transactions in Korean currency, the first opens the virtual currency transaction account under the name of the relevant member and charge points corresponding to the amount deposited by the relevant member. H members were able to engage in transactions only within the limit of the charged points as above. The first also complies with the rules to submit orders only within the scope of assets that should be returned to H members from the total assets owned by H, such as H members, within the scope of assets that should be returned to H members.

2) [A] He does not have a duty to inform H members of the fact that he/she will participate in the transaction as a person responsible for calculation. Since I was engaged in trading in the virtual currency held from the beginning, there was no possibility that H members may be exposed to the risks that he/she could not acquire the said virtual currency in the transaction with I. It is difficult to view that H members would not have engaged in the transaction of virtual currency if they knew that he/she would have participated in the transaction. There is no obligation to inform H members of the fact that they will participate in the transaction.

3) The I did not charge false assets to the K account.

K account does not contain assets held by the Defendants, but merely set the limit value of the order to be submitted through the automatic order program by I. Moreover, K account has been established for the purpose of supplying the original liquidity, so it has lost its functions of withdrawing and shipping money, so it cannot be deemed that the value recorded in the K account is the same as the balance information recorded in the virtual currency transaction account of H members.

4) There is no room for I to submit an order of ‘permission' without actual transaction with H members. The transaction that I opened K account and entered into with H members is not an order of ‘distinct supply', but an order of ‘performance', which is made at the level of ‘defluent ballast' and ‘defreshing of the assets and the rear frame phenomenon of H.

A) Claim on liquidity supply

I provided liquidity through the K account for the purpose of preventing unexpected change in the transaction price by some speculative forces and protecting its members from unexpected losses by providing assistance in trading virtual currency of H members at the beginning of H opening, at the same time, and by enhancing the quantity of heading orders, I supplied liquidity through the K account for the purpose of protecting its members from unexpected losses. I traded with the virtual currency actually held and with the Korean currency members, and supplied liquidity in a way that minimizes impacts on the market and customers by submitting an order only on the quotation between 3(a) and 10(a).

B) The assertion on the ballasting

After opening H, operating the Korean won market where the won currency becomes a axis, unlike other virtual currency exchanges, I opened H accounts in cooperation with L, which is the virtual currency exchange of the United States, and provided H members with services that can trade various Alccoins exceeding 100 channels in L (BTC, ETH, and USDT) (hereinafter referred to as the "Llocco market"). However, from the beginning of November 2017, due to the increase in trading volume in the link market, I tried to obtain the balance of H accounts in the name of L and the assets inconsistent with the customer president of H arising from the increase in trading volume in the foreign currency market. I tried to make such asset error, sold it to the members of the K account, and secured the quantity of the virtual currency in excess of the number of members of the K account.

5) I does not artificially form the transaction price of bitcoin in H, and artificial price formation is practically impossible. Points in Korean won, which I entered into the K account, are merely 10.8 billion won, and bitco points are merely 118 points. In light of the total market price of bitcoin, it is impossible to artificially manipulate the bitcoin price only with the above points.

Defendant C recognizes the fact that a algorithm program with the content of repeating the purchase of Bitcoin from “H” until it is higher than that of “N” if the bitcoin price in “H” is lower than that of “N” for the development purpose of H’s bar code. However, since the above program was at the development stage, it was not actually operated, and there was no fact that the above program was operated after H opened.

Even if I may reduce a temporary change in the price of Bitcoin by repeatedly submitting purchase orders or selling orders, other virtual currency exchanges are bound to stabilize the market price by purchasing Bitcoin at low price at low price and selling Bitcoin at low price at high price, or by selling Bitcoin at high price to another virtual currency exchange, using the difference in the market price between the exchange. In addition, in 2017, the price of Bitcoin has increased due to the heat of virtual currency at the end of 2017, and there has been a number of international bagss including Korea. In the situation where the transfer of virtual currency between the exchanges has not been prevented, the difference in the market price between Bitcoins is resolved by the power pursuing the exchange market price. Moreover, there is no reason for I to artificially form the market price between Bitcos.

6) One bicycle rider is not related to this part of the facts charged.

There is a fact that I submitted a sale order and a purchase order to K account at the same time and made a part of the self-transaction so that I trade takes place. However, this part of the facts charged does not regard the increase in trading volume caused by bicycle ridings as a problem, and the trading volume is only 1% of the total one transaction amount and 3% of the Korean won market transaction amount. The bicycle race set up in the automatic order program so that I can submit the same as the current transaction price. As the bicycle race was established in the automatic order program so that I can submit the same as the current transaction price, it cannot be evaluated that he artificially fabricated the virtual currency transaction price once.

A trade participant selected the virtual currency exchange is selecting an exchange, taking into account the services provided by the Exchange, such as liquidity, etc., such as characteristics and security of the market, and transaction fees, rather than simple trading volume. It is difficult to see that a new member has been introduced to I, and it is difficult for one bicycle rider to see that a new member has a significant impact on the increase in trading volume of the existing H member.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, the following facts are revealed.

(a) H's transaction method of encryption;

1) To use the virtual currency trading system, H member should first enter the ID and password on the H website and enter the membership following the procedures agreed to the terms and conditions of use and the Privacy Policy. If a customer enters the H’s trading system, the virtual currency trading account is created for each customer to the H’s trading system.

2) If a H member enters virtual currency into a designated electronic branch of the I or deposits won currency into the I’s corporate account, the I shall enter the virtual currency points or won point corresponding to the quantity and amount deposited from the entry into the I’s corporate account into the point balance in the relevant member’s virtual currency transaction account. If a H member requests money shipped out or withdrawn within the scope of the virtual currency point or won point, the I shall specify the amount.

The amount of virtual currency or won equivalent to the amount and amount requested by the relevant customer as an electronic wallet or bank account designated by the relevant customer shall be remitted.

3) A H member may trade virtual currency within the scope of the balance of virtual currency points and won point points entered in his/her virtual currency transaction account. A customer wishing to sell virtual currency shall designate a quantity and unit price, or shall submit an order for selling virtual currency at the market price to the trading system. On the contrary, a customer wishing to purchase virtual currency shall submit an order for purchasing virtual currency to a trading system at a designated price or market price.

4) Sales orders or purchase orders submitted by H members are indicated in the home page of the trading system. If the submitted sales orders and purchase orders coincide with each other, a transaction is concluded, as the transaction amount was concluded, the seller’s virtual currency points decrease from the seller’s virtual currency trading account, and won points increase. On the contrary, the buyer’s virtual currency points increase in the buyer’s virtual currency trading account, and the buyer’s virtual currency points decrease.

(b) Status of operation of H's virtual currency market;

1) On September 25, 2017, I operated the virtual currency exchange H through a model operation (Clodsbeta) around September 25, 2017. On October 24, 2017, I operated the virtual currency exchange through regular membership.

2) H not only provided virtual currency trading services in the L Linked Market (a bitcoin, Epire, Epire, and a market exchanging theme with H in the amount of money) provided by H through alliance with L. L. H submitted orders for purchase and sale of virtual currency listed in the L Linked Market within the scope of points held through the virtual currency trading account, H was in charge of mediating the conclusion of orders submitted by H members by entering the trading results into a transaction with L member through L account and entering it into H database (However, L does not provide transaction information in real time with L), and H did not receive trading information directly from L in the process of directly checking the transaction information in L, and operating H in the process of linkage with H members using H’s system (hereinafter “H”). On the other hand, H directly received fees from H 0% or 0% of the fee from H in the process of trading with H members.

3. Judgment on the issue

In the lower court, the issues revealed in the trial process of this case are judged, and on the basis of this, the determination of whether the facts charged are recognized.

(a) Whether I has charged any false asset to the K account;

1) The Defendants: (a) entered electronic currency information as shown in Appendix 1 in the K account opened by the Defendants; (b) but, at the time of entry, the fact that there is no entry of such electronic currency and won as corresponding to the electronic information entered in the K account; (c) around September 19, 2017, the Defendants made I employees AB, AC, AD, and AE purchase bitcos from N; (d) around September 20, 2017, the Defendants entered approximately 32 bitcos purchased by the above Defendants into the I’s L account from September 22, 2017 to September 22, 2017; (e) KRW 1.7 billion from the date on which the H model operation was carried out; and (e) KRW 1.7 billion from the date on which the Defendants entered into the 200 billion K account; and (e) the Defendants made a false entry of the KRW 1.77 billion from the K account into the 24.7 billion Won account.

However, it would be difficult to exclude the possibility of being established within the limit, as argued by the defense counsel, not the balance of the accumulated asset holding amount, such as the entry of the letter of private electromagnetic records, among the facts charged in this case. The reasons are as follows.

2) From September 24, 2017, the Defendants: (a) prepared the Request for Payment of the Hacco 118 points in K account; (b) purchased bitco 5.5 billion won from K to K account through its executives and employees; and (c) did not enter bitco 572.391416 points in Korea won as at September 24, 2017, which are less than bitco cco cco cco cco cco c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c.

I’s assets are significantly invested, assets deposited from H members (originalized, virtual currency);

Fees incurred in the operation process of H, won currency owned by I, and virtual currency. In the case of assets deposited from H members, won currency is kept in the bank account in the name of I, and virtual currency is kept in the account in the name of I and in the name of I. The fees incurred in the operation process of H are divided into transaction fees to be received in the Korean won market again, and transaction fees incurred in the L Link market. The won currency owned by I is stored in one bank account, and virtual currency is stored in one bank account, and virtual currency and I.

The commission acquired in the course of operating H is accumulated due to the characteristics of the virtual currency transaction conducted for 24 hours. The Defendants’ defense counsel asserts that K account submitted an order in accordance with the automatic order program. In other words, the above program confirms the quantity of virtual currency held in the Pe-mail and the virtual currency held in the L account and the virtual currency that I should return to H members, and if the number of virtual currency that I should return to H members is greater than zero (i.e., where the virtual currency is returned to H members, if it remains after the return of the virtual currency to H members) the sales order is to be submitted within the extent that the sales order is less than zero (i.e., the won is included in the Korean won fund held and invested by H won market, the revenue from the K won market generated in the Korean won market, and the amount of the won currency market that I would have to return to H members in the Korean won market, and the result of the above program would have to be less than that of the purchase order of H in the Korean won market, which would have to be submitted within the scope of the Korean won market.

If the order submitted by the K Account was conducted under the conditions established in advance in accordance with the aforementioned automatic order program, it is highly probable that the information entered into the K Account functions as a technical device to submit the order in the H Trading System where the asset information is entered and the order is available. The Defendants’ defense counsel is acceptable to a certain extent.

4) As indicated in the separate sheet of crime (I) No. 11, among the information that the Defendants entered into the K account, there were many virtual currencies listed only in the H won market. Unlike the Korean won market directly operated by the I, it appears that the L Linking market, which provides only brokerage services for the trading of virtual currency between H members and L with H members, would not be able to trade with H members. If the Defendants were to have sold the non-listed virtual currency to H members or entered false points into the K account in order to provide liquidity. However, there is no special reason to enter into the K account even the virtual currency that is not listed in the Korean won market, which cannot be traded with H members, into the K account.

In this regard, although the defendants' defense counsel dealt with H's communications error in the L Linking market provided as H's service, the order submitted by H members was revoked, the defendants argued that L had engaged in the so-called "the so-called "the so-called "the so-called "the so-called "the 10-called Acoco-purchase" business (the 10-in purchase, Bco-in 10-in sale) of the virtual currency held under the K account in the Korean won market for the purpose of resolving the problem of the 10-in-house situation (the 10-in-house reduction and 10-in-house increase) arising from the processing of the order as a contract concluded in L, but the 10-in-house increase due to the cancellation of H members' order.

I operated the H Trading System so that a variety of virtual currency not listed at that time can be traded through the L Linked Market. As a result, the occurrence of an unconformity phenomenon due to the communication error with L has occurred, it is called "dif," and in the inside of the company, it is understood as a duty to solve the problem with L and this problem as a top priority, and sharing L and this problem (No. 21 and 22). In addition, I listed Class 34 of the virtual currency traded only in the L Linked Market on November 2017 (Evidence No. 3: Evidence Record No. 1870-1875). Since the number of communication errors increased due to the increase in the number of orders in the L Linked Market, it is persuasive to some extent that the Defendants listed it in the Korean won market as much as possible despite the completion of the development of electronic locks which can support the ex-factory function in the future in the way of decentralization of traffic (No. 378).

5) From among the 35 types of virtual currency listed in the Korean won market, I purchased the actual currency only at the early stage, bitcoin, iono, and fluoride fluor, and did not directly purchase the remaining 32 types of virtual currency. Furthermore, H members could not directly release the relevant virtual currency for that period because the 32th class virtual currency requires several months to develop electronic wallets to support shipment services after being listed in the Korean won market (Evidence 2, 1171-186 pages). Based on such circumstances, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that, based on such circumstances, the Defendants, based on the 35 class of virtual currency listed in the Korean won market, only some of the Defendants, for the bitcoin, bitcoin, iono, and fluoral fluoral fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor fluor flu

However, the Defendants stated that: (a) the Defendants did not provide the delivery services due to the delayed development of I’s electronic locks; and (b) 32 virtual currency was kept in the L Account. As regards Class 32 virtual currency listed in the Korean won market, the Defendants completed the development of AB for the shipment from December 2, 2017 to April 2018 (Evidence No. 9No. 5339-5343); and (c) for some time, AB had long been using the virtual currency hacking in this court; and (d) had long time to form a new electronic wall platform and a security platform. In addition, the Defendants stated to the effect that “at least three months have been infected for each virtual currency” (AB witness 32); and (c) according to the ABA’s actual inspection report by an accounting corporation, the Defendants did not have any record on the remaining virtual currency in the Korean currency market due to the lack of proof on the Korean currency market or the lack of evidence on the 3rd 2018.

6) Among the prosecutor’s statement or suspect interrogation protocol of Defendant B, C, and Q (except for the part where the actual authenticity is denied), there were statements stating that the entry of electronic information into the K account into the K account is ‘false' and ‘compeachion' (hereinafter referred to as ‘the statement in this part'). However, in light of the following circumstances, the statement in this part alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendants charged false virtual currency or won currency to the K account.

A) Unlike this part of the statement, the Defendants and Q stated to the effect that they set the limit value at all different concepts from the false charge of virtual currency or won currency, which is deemed to be recorded in the K account in this court. Furthermore, unlike the Defendant B and C’s protocol of statement prepared by the prosecutor, the protocol of statement prepared by the prosecutor, and the protocol of suspect interrogation prepared by the Defendant B and C, the part directly revised by the Defendants to the effect that it conforms to the statements

B) The Defendants and Q consistently stated to the effect that they were ‘the setting of the limit value, not the shock in the process of the prosecutor’s statement,’ and to the effect that it was intended to revise some of the entries in the protocol to that effect, but it appears that they did not completely modify the entire expression ‘debate’ (the suspect examination protocol of Q in Q, prepared on June 19, 2018, stated Q, as Q, “the setting of the limit value” and the subsequent detailed statement that “I would like to set the limit value.” The record of evidence reveals that all of the charges discussed by Q, “I would like to set the limit value.” In addition to the concept of the virtual currency industry, such as the characteristics of the H trading system operated by Q, the operation method of the virtual currency exchange, and the implementation process of virtual currency transactions, in addition to the concept of the virtual currency industry, the characteristics of H trading system operated by Q, the linkage with L, the meaning of electronic information recorded in the account at the core point of this case, and the possibility and background of the prosecutor’s statement in this part, without properly concentrating the prosecutor’s statement.

C) Defendant B and C had been under investigation for the first time as a person with no criminal record. Articles 1 and 2 were reported to the other virtual currency exchange including the I, and both Defendant B, C’s computer, cellular phone, etc. were seized in the course of search and seizure of the I. Although Defendant B and C had been under investigation by appointing a defense counsel, Defendant B and C’s statement (30, 31, 36 pages, C’s transcript of examination of witness, 61, 62, 63, 83, 84, 85, 80, 91, 92 pages) in this court, in light of the following: (a) Defendant B and C’s statement in this court (61, 62, 63, 63, 84, 85, 90, 91, and 92) appears to have been considerably difficult for Defendant B and C to receive substantial assistance from the defense counsel at the time of investigation. In particular, Defendant C had been under psychological and unstable conditions at the time.

D) It does not state all the statement as it is, but it does not state all the statement that it is stated as it is the statement (see Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019Dahap186, Jan. 13, 2020). From 10:30 on June 5, 2018 to 22:50 (it means 11:40-13:30, 18:10-19:20 on June 5, 201) and the first statement of Defendant C prepared with the prosecutor about the fact that it was conducted 20 pages, 14:30 to 21:0 on June 7, 2018 (it means 17:10-19:00 on June 13, 202). The second statement of Defendant C prepared the protocol of examination with the prosecutor’s appearance prepared and made without the prosecutor’s request for appearance, and it is not confirmed that it was prepared and made 35 minutes on the date of examination by the prosecutor.

(b) Whether the person sells the virtual currency not held by the I, or purchases the virtual currency in Korean won not owned;

1) As seen earlier, I demanded I’s employees AB, AC, AD, and AE to purchase bitcos from N. From September 20, 2017 to September 22, 2017. In addition, I purchased approximately 32 bitcos from September 20, 2017 to September 22, 2017, and had Defendant B, other than the Defendant B, AH, AD, AB, AC, AC, and AE transfer purchase funds to Bbitcos through the NCo’s account, and the Defendant, etc. did not purchase 5.5 billion won from N from N to 5.4 billion won from 5.4 billion won from 5.4 billion won from 205 billion won from 50,0000,0000 won from 940,0000,0000 won from 940,0000,000 won from 94.294,000

However, it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone sold the virtual currency without holding it at all or in part, or purchased the virtual currency in Korean won which is not owned. The reasons are as follows.

2) As seen earlier, I managed the K account to submit an order in accordance with the automatic order program. The program is designed to submit an order to sell virtual currency to H members within the scope of the remaining amount of virtual currency after returning the virtual currency to H members, and if I returned won to H members, it appears that the order to purchase virtual currency was submitted within the scope of the program.

3) Only in the case of Bitcoin: (a) holding Bitcoin (Evidence No. 30) directly purchased from K in the K account in the H won market, other than Bitcoin purchased from N, and (b) purchasing Bitcoin directly in the Llocoin market from November 12, 2017 to Hizedcoin. The comparison of the quantity of Bitcoin purchased through various channels is confirmed to hold Bitcoin more than the quantity of the Bitcoin sold to H members. However, around January 10, 2018, I appears to have sold Bitcoin, not from K account (Evidence No. 30) to other accounts (Evidence No. 38); and (c) selling Bitcoin directly in the Lloco market from November 12, 2017 to 3081.27, 2015.

However, the foregoing data alone cannot be readily concluded that I received fees from L for the first time on January 2018. Even if only L was paid on or around January 2018, I had a claim corresponding to L with respect to L whenever a transaction in the Lloet market was conducted, and the virtual currency sold to H members was calculated as a quantity to be returned to members, and thus, this part of virtual currency could not be utilized for other purposes. Considering this, it is difficult to view that the Exchange, even if it did not own the said virtual currency at all, it is the same as the external currency transaction in the form of selling the said virtual currency to customers and purchasing the said currency at another exchange after the fact.

4) A prosecutor asserts that he/she sold virtual currency that he/she did not hold as evidence 47 lbalance 2018017165's 144", 47 lbalance 2017 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalance 2017 lbalance 27 lbalance 27 lbalm 2017 lbalance 27 lbalm 2017 lbalm 2017 lbalm 27 lbalm 2017 lm 2017 lm 2417 lm204 lm2017 lm2017 l.

However, the foregoing evidence is an indirect circumstantial evidence that makes it possible for the prosecutor to conceal the possibility of selling virtual currency, etc. which is not actually held. The prosecutor’s aforementioned assertion can be easily proven by comparing the quantity of virtual currency held on each trading day, virtual currency held on the same day as the quantity of Korean won, and Korean won, through the database of the H trading system. However, it is difficult to verify the foregoing facts as evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

5) As to the documents of the above LP-balance, the Defendants’ defense counsel asserted to the effect that, without suspending H’s operation for the purpose of preparing the financial statements in 2017, the losses incurred from the participation in virtual currency transaction (as of December 31, 2017) were renounced in the middle of several times for calculating the amount of losses incurred from the participation in virtual currency transaction (as of December 31, 2017), and that the result is not accurate). In fact, examining the column for the “culp quantity” among the documents of the above LP-balance, although the points that I entered into the K account are less than a small number, there are no points that are entered into the K account as shown in the attached list of crimes (1). Moreover, I did not reflect losses incurred from the participation in virtual currency transaction in the financial statements in 2017, and on May 31, 2018, I did not enter them into the same as the previous H account in the unit of below a small number.

However, as a result of the calculation, approximately KRW 18.7 billion was appropriated as loss (No. 29), and I was also aware that it was damaged by K account operation.

6) Examining documents on July 16, 2017, Hareter (LP) strategies and issues, the Defendants stated that “Am-coin (5 type excluding BTC/KW) is not actually holding the coin, but only concluding a contract and take an opposite solution to L/BC.” According to the above documents, the Defendants appears to have considered the ways to supplement the said virtual currency in another market after supplying the said currency in the situation where the Defendants did not actually hold the virtual currency, and the Defendants presented a proposal to supplement the said virtual currency after supplying the liquidity first without holding the said virtual currency. However, the Defendants rejected the above proposal by Defendant C, simply secured liquidity, and ordered the Defendants to use the said virtual currency to supply it as the basis of the above provision of the funds for investment KRW 100 million from the investment company. The Defendants stated that the Defendants made a statement to the effect that the Defendants were using the funds necessary for supplying the said KRW 200,000,000,000,000.

7) In light of the overall process reorganization as of July 23, 2017 - the summary of the session as of August 15, 2017, and the AF-related e-mail stored by C on December 19, 2017, it is recognized that the method of supplementing the virtual currency was stated in another market after supplying liquidity in the absence of virtual currency in the manner as alleged by the prosecutor. However, the AJ, who directly prepared a summary document of the session as of July 23, 2017, stated to the effect that the said document was not realized as of August 15, 2017 (AJ’s examination record). In addition, Defendant C did not have any means of supplying the said virtual currency to the effect that it would not have been able to use the said document within the scope of “AF-related e-mail with the Exchange” in this court, and that it did not have any means of supplying the said document in advance. Moreover, Defendant C did not have any means of supplying evidence to the effect that it could not have been known in advance.

8) In light of the photograph (Evidence 8:5068 pages) of the computer screen closure (Evidence 8:5068 pages), I appears to have calculated liabilities by deducting points recorded in the K account from the aggregate of points recorded in the virtual currency trading account of H members and points recorded in the K account, such as the Schedule of Crimes (I) from the total of points recorded in the K account. The Defendants stated to the effect that the points recorded in the K account from the beginning are unrelated to the assets owned by I and excluded from the calculation of liabilities. On this point, the Prosecutor argued to the effect that “the sum of the balance of the customer deposit and the balance entered in the K account and the balance recorded in the K account was recognized as a total amount of liabilities, and that I did not have real assets corresponding thereto.” However, the Prosecutor’s assertion to the effect that “one of the above 13th public prosecutor’s opinions and 20th public prosecutor’s opinions were not based on the same evidence as “one of the above 14th public prosecutor’s opinions and 14th public prosecutor’s opinions.”

9) According to the verification report prepared by AA Accounting Corporation around January 20, 2018 and January 29, 2018, I confirmed that it has been holding won currency amounting to KRW 1 trillion and approximately KRW 5,700 billion exceeding the won deposited by H members and virtual currency amounting to KRW 1,00,000 (No. 26,27, No. 10) in excess of the won deposited by H members. Rather, I did not seem to have delayed the request of H members for delivery and withdrawal. Rather, I immediately provided H members with the above request (No. 37-1 through 4), HK and AL were stated for the same purpose in this court (hereinafter the record of examination of evidence No. 14, 15, AL-14, 194, and 197) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes. However, I appears to have never been able to participate in the examination of evidence in the transaction, and thus, did not appear to have been subject to fraud.

1) Where a transaction of virtual currency occurs between H members, profits and losses arising from the transaction are determined at the same time as the end of the transaction, and the virtual currency seller does not have an interest in the fluctuation in the market price of the virtual currency, which is the subject matter of the transaction. As long as it appears to have sold the virtual currency to H members within the scope of the virtual currency actually owned, the structure of acquiring profits equivalent to the difference due to the fluctuation in the market price of the virtual currency after selling the virtual currency to H members after the sale of the virtual currency in the virtual currency (other than H members, it is difficult to view that the first has a interest in the fluctuation in the market price of the virtual currency, which is opposed to H members.

2) As seen earlier, H members’ trust with H is related to the authenticity of the ordered information submitted. It is difficult to deem that the other party is actually aware or is another H member. Of course, if I, a virtual currency exchange, is not a broker for the trading of virtual currency and becomes a party, there is a possibility that it will give priority to the interests of the Exchange rather than to the interests of the customer. However, even though I did not explicitly express to H members that H members would participate in the trading of virtual currency for liquidity supply, I notified H members of the fact that he would supply the early liquidity during the demonstration operation period, and even within the company, the Defendant C was sufficiently informed of the fact that it was in charge of liquidity supply, and even within the company, it does not seem to have carried out the situation that the Plaintiff supplied liquidity as if he had expressed that it was used for liquidity supply at the time of attracting investments from investors.

3) The virtual currency exchange like H is formed and operated by the Korea Exchange, such as sale, submission of an order for purchase, conclusion, and liquidation, and the financial investment business entity that is its members, and the Korea Securities Depository, which is its members. However, even if such external appearance was formed, it shall not be determined based on the same external currency exchange, on the ground that there are more than a number of times within Korea, unlike the Korea Exchange, not only the same property as the virtual currency and shares, but also the operational form and operation method, such as the difference in the transaction price of the virtual currency between each exchange and each exchange, and there are no special provisions governing the virtual currency exchange, unlike the Korea Exchange.

4) Aside from the determination on the appropriateness and possibility of criticism as to whether to participate in trading of the virtual currency exchange, it is difficult to view that the participation in trading of the virtual currency exchange itself is prohibited under the current laws and regulations or that the virtual currency exchange will not participate in trading under the principle of good faith.

D. At the time of participation in the transaction, the trading party, who intends to participate in the transaction in the virtual currency exchange, must put the virtual currency and won into the K account; 1) The trading party, who intends to participate in the transaction in the transaction in the virtual currency exchange, has actually deposited and stored the won currency or virtual currency, and has received corresponding points and made it possible to trade the virtual currency within the scope of the transaction. Furthermore, the virtual currency exchange is aware of such fact through the terms and conditions of use, etc. and has been actively informed that it can trade the virtual currency without bearing any risk to the other party’s credit. Likewise, the members, as seen in H, cannot be specifically aware of the other party’s identity, the amount of Korean currency or virtual currency deposited by the other party to the transaction, and the points held by the other party to the transaction, are engaged in the transaction with the trust that at least the purchase order and sales order submitted by

2) The I indicates the amount of assets held by each member by inputting points corresponding to the assets transferred to I from H members into the virtual currency transaction account given to each member. The amount of assets held above also becomes the limit of orders that the relevant member can submit in the H transaction system. Even if there are assets of any member, unless the relevant assets are deposited into the I, sales and purchase orders may not be submitted in excess of the amount of assets held in the relevant virtual currency transaction account.

3) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the K account opened by I had no fact that, around September 2017 to November 2017, 2017, executives and employees of I purchased from N and entered B in the K account, Bitcoin, Eitcoin, Eitrates, Eitrates, and other virtual currency closure or won currency equivalent to those of Eitcoin other than Eitcoin type. However, I applied for the automatic order program and submitted an order for sale and purchase within the scope after calculating the scope of the pertinent virtual currency and won currency actually possessed by K account each time when the K account submits the order. If such principle is actually observed, it is difficult for the customer who traded with I to evaluate that there is a possibility that the risk of being exposed to the risks of being unable to receive the said virtual currency or foreign currency equivalent to the risks or points that may occur, such as the lack of financial resources of I, the purchase failure of virtual currency, or the amount of

4) The core of H’s trust lies in: (a) H members were submitted based on the actual assets owned by the other party; (b) the acquisition of the said virtual currency when they purchase the said virtual currency at H; and (c) the acquisition of won equivalent to the sales price in the event they sell the said virtual currency. In fact, in order to comply with the principle of participation in trading with the assets in possession and to protect H members’ trust, it cannot be denied that the same method is the most desirable for H members to directly charge for virtual currency and won currency and to trade within the same extent; (c) unlike H members, I concurrently held the position as H operator; (d) virtual currency deposited by H members, won currency deposited by H members, and won currency were all managed by H members; and (e) assets owned by H including investment funds, L account, etc., other than assets received from H members, vary through various channels; and (e) if such circumstances were taken into account, it is difficult to readily conclude that H’s assets and assets are not subject to deposit within the scope of the entire account that the public prosecutor would actually be used within the scope of H’s account.

5) As long as I participated in the transaction with the assets actually held in accordance with the principles such as H members, it is difficult to view that I as a trading partner, it treats I differently from its members and gives superior status to I. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that I had an opportunity to utilize the assets equivalent to points entered in the transaction in another virtual currency exchange for another purpose, such as participating in the transaction in another virtual currency exchange for the purpose of obtaining market price gains.

(e) Whether the transaction price in H artificially has been formed;

1) In the event that Defendant C’s repeated purchase of bitcos compared to the N’s trading price at N, and the price of the bitcos in the H won market at N. H won market was lower than the N Exchange’s price, there was a so-called so-called bitcos purchase order was discovered. However, on June 21, 2018, the prosecutor conducted verification of various order programs installed on H trading system server at the I office at H on the I office, but did not find the above so-called bitcos or any similar source code. Defendant C was working for the purpose of testing the above so-called bitcos for the operation period in this court, but in fact, Defendant C was operating H with bitcos regularly, and I did not have any reason to seek the above so-called bitcos purchase order, and there was no reason to acknowledge that H’s price was higher than the above bitco’s price recorded in the H’s environment for structural reasons.

(ii) relation to the most trade;

A) From among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants cited the Defendants’ deception that the Defendants artificially formed the transaction price of HBcoin in the K account by repeating ‘the paper sale', ‘the order of permission', and ‘Fraud transaction'.

In light of the above facts charged, it is not deemed that the fact that the trading volume of K account increases due to the "the provisional sale of K account", and thereby, the fact that the ordinary person caused mistake as if the H trading system had a sex.

B) Even in light of the following circumstances, even if the volume of trading has increased due to the 'Temporary trading', and thereby caused mistake in the gold H trading system as if the trading was sexually active, the increase in the volume of trading by the K account and the inflow of customers do not seem to have a significant relation.

(1) First of all, we examine the impact of the most trading made by the virtual currency exchange on the inflow of potential customers of the virtual currency exchange. Generally, the reason why the virtual currency exchange makes the most trade using a specific account (manager’s account or operator’s related account) is to attract potential customers by causing potential customers to misunderstand that the transaction would have been facilitated and that the transaction would have been easily possible. It refers to the website indicating the trading volume of the virtual currency exchange at “N”, which provides priority based on the trading volume of the global virtual currency exchange, and the potential customers were to select an exchange at the time of trading through the said website. In short, in the case of the virtual currency exchange, it appears that there was no potential method of increasing trading volume through the best trading volume for entering the name of “N” in order of trading volume. However, it appears that there was no potential method of providing information to customers from 10 to 25th day of December 2017, 201.

(2) Next, we examine the impact of H members on the participation of H in the trading. Then, I disclosed information such as the market price and trading volume on the screen when H members trade virtual currency, and there was a maximum of 54% of the shares of Bitcoin in the Korean won market between K accounts. However, K account established sale and purchase between K account only when there is a specific interval between 1 price and 1 price, and it seems that there was no fact that the transaction was concluded beyond the above scope. In addition, it appears that K account opened an average of 12% of the criminal period stated in this part of the facts charged, and that the trading volume between K account was 12% since December 16, 2017, and that there was no liquidity between K and K account’s name on the date when it was concluded, or that there was an extremely low proportion of sale between K and K account’s name on the date when it was concluded. It is also important that K’s statement to the effect that there was a large proportion of sale in the Korean won market after the date of examination.

3) As to the order of permission

A) According to H database, K account submitted an order and revoked the order on a short-time basis. For this reason, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that, unlike the purpose of liquidity supply, the prosecutor could not directly supply liquidity, it is inappropriate to provide it, and that, unlike the purpose of liquidity supply, only repeats only the submission and cancellation of the order with H members without the intention to conclude the order with H members, thereby deceiving the transaction as if the transaction was activated. However, in light of the following reasons, the order for which the order was submitted and revoked as above was proved as a result of the liquidity supply process conducted by I, and it is insufficient to view that the prosecutor proven that the “authorized order” was “the same as the prosecutor’s assertion.

B) The liquidity supplier system is exceptionally a system under which a securities company submits orders for the purpose of supplying liquidity, under an agreement with listed corporations, in exceptional cases where the interval between asking prices in the securities market is not so high. The supply of liquidity is limited to investors’ judgment, in order for a securities company to supply liquidity, the requirements are limited, is subject to supervision by the Korea Exchange, and the details of the submission of orders should also be disclosed.

C) However, for virtual currency exchanges, there is no provision on liquidity suppliers or other similar systems. The virtual currency exchanges form a appearance similar to the Korea Exchange using the name "Exchange", and the virtual currency exchanges assume the duty to create a sound trade environment, and UIce used by customers cannot regulate them as the liquidity supplier system in the securities exchange on the grounds that UIce is similar to that provided by the securities exchange. In addition, unless there is any relevant statute, it cannot be interpreted that the virtual currency exchange is prohibited from directly supplying liquidity, without taking into account various specific circumstances such as methods of supplying liquidity by the virtual currency exchange, whether it owns virtual currency corresponding to the orders submitted for liquidity supply purpose, whether the exchange exercises market control through the order for liquidity supply, whether the exchange exercises market control through the order for liquidity supply, and the extent that the market is disturbed.

D) The K account submitted orders within the scope of KRW 200 million from 3A to 10 billion, and the previous orders were revoked and the previous orders were newly submitted based on the price of the change. However, there seems to exist details to cancel the previous orders in the process. However, the interval between the submission and cancellation of the above orders is not several times within the first place, such as the initial trade, but the interval between 15 to 100 seconds is maintaining a wide interval. The current price of the said virtual currency should be at a minimum direction that affects the market price. Accordingly, if the current price of the said virtual currency increases or decreases and the order for the liquidity supply is maintained without flexibly changing the scope of the submission of the current order for the liquidity supply, thereby affecting the market price of the virtual currency exchange.

E) Article 1(1) of the Act provides that “The method of liquidity supply is in line with the purpose of liquidity supply” and it is deemed appropriate that the method I takes place in light of the purport of liquidity supply. If I submits orders to purchase and sell orders to a certain extent that is highly likely to be actually traded, it would rather affect the market price, and the liquidity reduction is likely to occur due to the conclusion with the orders already submitted by H members.

F) The text submitted by K account appears to be submitted within the scope of assets purely owned by K account according to the automatic order program. If H member is capable of concluding orders corresponding to the pertinent text (it can be considered that the mayor submits orders) and there are a considerable number of details of transactions between K account and H members.

4) Whether artificial price can be formed or not

A) Virtual currency, unlike the securities market, is traded in various exchanges, regardless of its nature, regardless of whether it is domestically and abroad, may have a little difference for each exchange, but the overall price of virtual currency is formed. In light of witness AK and AL testimony, in the case of virtual currency with a large trading volume, such as Bitcoin, trade is performed at a price similar to that of a certain exchange, so long as it does not intentionally prevent the function of the deposit and withdrawal of the H trading system, it seems that there is little room for natural price naturally to return to the normal category and artificially intervene in the formation of the Bitcoin price.

B) The facts charged of the crime of fraud that artificially forms a price for H members, deceiving H members, and acquiring money equivalent to the sale price and fees by selling Bitcoin to H members, refers to the formation of a higher price when compared with the normal bitco price formed in the absence of I’s intervention. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone form the A K account to the effect that the Bitcoin price in the H won market was artificially formed through the AK account. However, if the virtual currency exchange is viewed as an artificially formed price from the point of view that it should not participate in all transactions, it is difficult to deem that I is prohibited from participating in the transaction as seen earlier; I actually participated in the transaction in accordance with the principle of participation in the trading; and otherwise, it is difficult to conclude that H members would manipulate the market price of Bitco or have caused unfair influence on H’s member’s free judgment on the trading of virtual currency; in light of the fact that H’s management and operation of the K account are insufficient.

5) Regarding fraudulent transactions

The prosecutor estimated the sale details of Bitco among the total transaction details entered into with H members into with H in K account under the title of the "non-Coin fraud which pretended to sell the general members' normal sale," thereby constituting a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and a crime of fraud. Of the various contents stated by deception in this part of the facts charged, the "Fraud transaction" refers to the transaction details (sale, purchase), which K account entered into with H members, such as the details of market manipulation (BTC). However, fraud is a fraudulent act, a disposal act, a causal relationship between a deceptive act and a disposal act, a fraud, and a "non-co-sale act" constitutes a fraud, and it is difficult to somewhat obtain the method of establishing the facts charged required for a fraudulent act, which constitutes the elements of a fraud (the defense counsel of the defendant has not been properly specified in this part of the facts charged). The judgment on whether a specific violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Fraud is a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc.

4. Determination as to whether to prove the facts charged

A. The charge on the part of the exercise of private electronic records, etc. is premised on the premise that “the amount of information entered into the K account means the amount of assets retained by the owner of the K account immediately.” The virtual currency trading account of H members refers to the amount of the order that the relevant member can submit and the scope of assets owned at the same time. However, as determined earlier, electronic information entered into the K account is likely to have functioned within the scope of the order that the said account can be submitted under the H trading system, and it is insufficient to view the said electronic information as the balance of assets held in the K account. Even if all evidence submitted by the prosecutor were examined, it is difficult to view that the Defendants proved that “the false information entered in the K account” was “the amount of assets held in the K account.” Furthermore, insofar as it was not proven that the electronic records were forged, it cannot be viewed that the exercise of the private electronic records, as long as it was premised on the foregoing.

B. The violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the charge on the part of fraud constitute the Defendants’ deception that: (a) the part of the charge is part of the transaction as a virtual currency or won, and (b) I did not inform H members of the fact that I did not actually own most of virtual currency or won and traded with H members; and (c) I did not artificially form price.

The deception as a requirement for fraud refers to all affirmative or passive acts that have to observe each other in a widely related property transaction, and among them, deception by passive acts refers to a person subject to the duty of disclosure who is aware that the other party has been involved in a mistake as to a certain fact, and if it is evident that the other party would not have been aware of such fact in light of the empirical rule of general transactions, the legal obligation to notify such fact is recognized in light of the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006).

We examine in light of the aforementioned legal principles. As seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that I participated in the transaction of virtual currency in the form of external currency without holding virtual currency and won, and even though trading between K account, submission of orders, and revocation have been repeated, it is difficult to view that the transaction price of H bitco in the H won market was artificially formed due to such transaction. Moreover, there is no evidence to verify that I provided services based on the mobile phone from among the virtual currency exchanges in the instant case, which were operated at the time, to the extent that H 1 had been directly involved in the transaction for the purpose of gaining profit from the market price. Furthermore, even if the Defendants were not aware of the fact that I and H were not aware of the fact that the Defendants were not aware of the fact that the Defendants were not H under the law, such as the Plaintiff’s trading of virtual currency, and that the Defendants were not aware of the fact that the Defendants were 1 and Hco-related companies in the instant case, and that the Defendants were not aware of the fact that the Defendants were 1 and H were not aware of the fact.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since each of the facts charged against the Defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, each of the facts charged in the instant case should be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of this judgment should be published in accordance

For the presiding judge and judge;

Judges' Index

Judges Kim Gin-han

1) It seems that the term “owner” appears to be a clerical error.

2) It refers to the practice of search and seizure warrant published by the Court Administration Office (amended No. 2).

3) A prosecutor asserts that, on the AF-related e-mail stored by C on December 19, 2017, “Rebalaning and Hedge: (a) conduct to make fashion 0 by performing the counter-transaction of the transaction conducted in the E-mail market (Evidence No. 5318 pages 5318).” He asserts that, in the course of supplying liquidity without holding virtual currency, the transaction with H members would offset the risk of asset change through the counter-transaction. However, there is insufficient grounds to support the Defendants’ performance of the e-mail-related work, such as the content stated in the said e-mail, and the Defendants also stated that there is no way to carry out the e-mail “e-mail” business as described above.

the Commission.

4) As to the method of preparing the above documents, the Defendants’ defense counsel asserted that the information entered into the K account was recorded only in the quantity at the time of confirmation, so that the points remaining in the K account were confirmed by the method of putting the transaction details generated in the remaining points in the K account, and that the Defendants attempted to calculate the approximate loss amount arising from the operation of the K account through this, and that there was a number that is not consistent with the actual results.