The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 900,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. Based on the ex officio determination, it is reasonable to view that each of the similar recipients of this case was engaged in a single and continuous criminal intent, and constitutes a single and continuous comprehensive crime. The lower court committed a mistake for adding aggravated concurrent crimes by applying each of the similar recipients of this case to substantive concurrent crimes.

A. The crime of violation of Articles 6(1) and 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, such as the act of receiving each of the instant similar amounts, is a business crime.

B. The method of attracting investment, such as the company subject to investment and the amount of dividends, is the same for the receipt of each similar act of this case.

(c)

Each similar receipt of the instant case is identical to the investor and the amount of the investment made by the investor is identical.

(d)

The time interval between the act of receiving the same kind of goods in this case is about 2 days.

E. One of the acts of receiving similar kinds of this case is the form of a common principal, and the other is the form of a private principal, but the other is the form of a private principal. However, in full view of the above facts, the defendant's singleness and continuity of the crime against each similar act of receiving similar amounts of this case cannot be denied solely on the basis of the following circumstances: (i) the unique characteristic of the act of receiving similar amounts, which is kept in the form of continuous or non-permanent manner like the water network, (ii) the act of receiving similar amounts of money committed in the form of a common principal, and (iii) the act of receiving similar amounts of money paid by the investor twice in the form of a common principal, and (iv) the actual and ultimate attribution relationship of the investment amount paid by the investor twice cannot be accurately known; (iv) the act of receiving similar amounts of money by an administrative criminal, not the fraud of property, cannot be seen as an essential element.

3. The judgment of the court below is correct.