A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant is a person who works as a securities company.

Around May 23, 2015, the Defendant was unable to engage in daily investment business without registering the financial investment business, but around May 23, 2015, the Defendant provided that “B, as a director of the first team in the management of B (State) products, specialized in futures for a period of up to a hundred millions as a director of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Group, demanded a large number of people to pay money. At all times, at the time of receiving money, the Defendant would have up to 30% of the profits and would not receive fees, and if 30% or more of the profits are damaged by 30% or more, the Defendant would be able to cut off the transactions and suspend the transactions.” From around 13:45, May 26, 2015, the Defendant received from B the amount of KRW 70,000 to the account in the name of B, and incurred a considerable amount of loss from September 20, 2015 to September 4, 2015.

The Defendant did not register the financial investment business as above and engaged in the investment-related forestry business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part B of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant in the prosecution

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report (Submission of remittance details to a complainant), investigation report (Submission of a certified copy of a suspect A corporate registry);

1. Article 45 of the relevant Act and Articles 445 subparagraph 1 and 17 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, the selection of punishment for a crime, and the selection of imprisonment;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The summary of the argument is that the Defendant was an investment only from B, and did not continuously and repeatedly engage in investment-related forestry, but did not operate separately by investors. Thus, the Defendant was engaged in “business”-invested forestry.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

(1) On May 23, 2015, the Defendant is commissioned by B to make decisions on investment in financial investment instruments, etc. at least 5%.