Defendant

D. All appeals filed by both F and Prosecutor are dismissed.

The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on inspection of the summary of the grounds for appeal (as to Defendant A, B, and C), even though it should have tried separately from the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts by the said Defendants pursuant to Article 32(6) of the Act, and the remaining parts of the Act, thereby violating the relevant statutes.

In fact, the lower court acquitted Defendant E of the credibility of the AG and W’s statement that Defendant E provided a direct explanation of the business, and found Defendant E not guilty despite the possibility that Defendant E may obtain direct or indirect benefit.

Defendant

D. misunderstanding of the legal principles or mistake of the facts, Defendant D merely introduced O only to WW, which had an interest in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “O”) as a long as it was not a large number of unspecified persons, and did not contain a public invitation in A, etc.’s act of receiving similar facts.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

Defendant

misunderstanding of the F fact or misunderstanding of the legal principles, Defendant F did not raise funds from a large number of unspecified people other than AG and W by explaining the business, and there was no fact that Defendant F only operated the Obucheon Center as the representative director of the separate business chain V.

In addition, there is no conspiracy to receive the similar activities of Korea, A, etc.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (six months of imprisonment, one year of probation, one year of community service order) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

Article 32(1) of the Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies (hereinafter “Act on Corporate Governance of Financial Companies”) on the determination of the prosecutor’s assertion as to the misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the prosecutor’s assertion (as to Defendant A, B, and C), the Financial Services Commission has regard to the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, the Punishment of Tax Offenses Act, and the Financial Services Commission’s determination as to the largest shareholder among the largest shareholders of the financial company subject to the pertinent provision (hereinafter “persons subject to examination of eligibility”).