Defendant 1 and one other

Maximum number of defenses

Attorney Park Sung-chul et al.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

A. Defendant 1

The Defendant is the head of Geumcheon-gu Seoul (hereinafter address 1 omitted) Nonindicted Co. 1 in Geumcheon-gu.

In collusion with Nonindicted Co. 2, the actual representative of Nonindicted Co. 1, the Defendant, despite the absence of the fact that Nonindicted Co. 1 had obtained a guarantee insurance permit from the Financial Services Commission, concluded a guarantee insurance contract and attempted to run a guarantee insurance

Around September 16, 2009, the Defendant entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the creditor, Nonindicted 4, and the debtor, to compensate for the creditor's losses in connection with the performance of the obligation amounting to KRW 500 million under a contract between Nonindicted 5 and the debtor, and received from March 3, 2010, 208,61,484,665 won of the total amount of the obligation over 226 times as shown in the attached crime list (1) from March 3, 201, and received fees equivalent to 3% of the debt amount.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with Nonindicted Party 2, engaged in guarantee insurance business without obtaining permission from the Financial Services Commission.

B. Defendant 2

The defendant is a director of the non-indicted 3 company in Gangnam-gu Seoul (hereinafter address 2 omitted) 8th floor of building.

The Defendant, although Nonindicted Co. 3 did not have received a guarantee insurance permit from the Financial Services Commission, concluded a guarantee insurance contract and received a fee.

Around March 30, 2009, the Defendant entered into a guarantee insurance contract of KRW 7,128,082,500 with respect to the performance of the obligation between the creditor, Nonindicted Co. 6 and the debtor’s non-indicted Co. 7, and received KRW 100 million from June 2, 2009 to June 2, 2009, for the total amount of the obligation of KRW 8,928,082,50 for four times in total, as shown in the list of crimes (2), and received fees of KRW 17 million in total.

Accordingly, the defendant carried on guarantee insurance business without obtaining permission from the Financial Services Commission.

2. Determination

A. Article 4 (1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that "a person who intends to run an insurance business shall obtain permission from the Financial Services Commission for each type of insurance business," and Article 200 (1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that a guarantee insurance falls under one category of non-life insurance business, and Article 200 (1) of the Insurance Business Act provides that a person who violates it shall be punished, and first of all, whether

B. According to each of the statements made by the Defendants and Nonindicted 2 in the investigative agencies and the investigation agencies of this court, each statement made by Nonindicted 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 to the investigation agencies, each of the payment guarantee certificates for Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 13, the current status of issuing the payment guarantee certificates for Nonindicted 13, and each of the entries in the issuance register of the payment guarantee certificates, etc., the Nonindicted 1 Company may, upon the application of Nonindicted 13 on December 9, 2009, issue the payment guarantee certificates with the amount of KRW 50 million from September 10, 2009 to March 3, 2010, and issue the payment guarantee certificates with the amount of KRW 30% of the payment guarantee amount to the obligor and KRW 226,000,000,0000 from September 10, 209 to March 3, 2010, Defendant 1 issued the payment guarantee certificates with the obligor’s payment guarantee certificates as stated in attached Form 1.

According to the above facts, the defendants' act of issuing each payment guarantee letter as above is likely to constitute an insurance business because it is similar to the case where a project undertaker gives and receives a certain amount in advance from creditors or general debtors under the pretext of membership fees, commissions, etc. and promises to compensate for the damages of creditors who have occurred in the event of default from this fund.

C. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants and Nonindicted 2’ investigative agencies and their respective statements in this court, each payment guarantee letter, Nonindicted Co. 3’s corporate register, Nonindicted Co. 1’s website data, Nonindicted Co. 1’s corporate register, and investigation report (in addition to a notice of procedure for issuing a payment guarantee letter issued by the Defendants in each payment guarantee letter issued by the Defendants) are likely to cause a mistake as “payment guarantee insurance” because they are not used in each payment guarantee letter issued by the Defendants, and it is difficult to deem that each payment guarantee letter issued by the Defendants is an act of issuing a payment guarantee certificate issued by a financial institution by means of a payment guarantee certificate, and there is room to regard each payment guarantee letter issued by the Defendants as an act of issuing a payment guarantee certificate by the financial institution. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants engaged

1) On July 16, 2009, Nonindicted Co. 1 continued to be dissolved by adding "Specialized Credit Financial Business, incidental business to credit card business, deferred payment sales business, credit loans or secured loan business, bill discount business, business of takeover and management of sales claims acquired by the company through the provision of goods and services, credit investigation and incidental business related to each of the above businesses, and purchase, transfer, sale, issuance, and payment guarantee business, etc. of bonds held in relation to each of the above businesses, or securities issued on the basis of each of the above businesses," and Nonindicted Co. 3 added its purpose as in the above purpose of Nonindicted Co. 1 on April 17, 1998. In addition, both Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 specified "payment guarantee business" in its purpose.

2) The items of each payment guarantee letter issued by Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 3 are classified into creditors or guaranty offices, guarantors, debtors, the content of guaranteed liabilities, guaranteed amount, guarantee period, claim period of guaranteed liabilities, claim place of guaranteed liabilities, contents of guaranteed liabilities, etc. However, the name of "insurance" has not been used at all among the items and contents thereof.

3) The payment guarantee is a contract under which a financial company guarantees the payment of an obligation owed by a trader to the counterparty and instead pays fees to the financial company. Financial institutions, including banks under the Banking Act, carry out the payment guarantee business as one of incidental businesses, and some of them carry out the payment guarantee business in the form similar to the payment guarantee issued by the Defendants.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, it is decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty against the Defendants under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Cho Sung-sung