logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.05.23 2013고정2054
유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

Summary of Facts charged

1. Defendant A, around May 9, 2013, published an advertisement on May 10, 201 for shipbuilding day, Korea Japan around the 10th day of the same month, and around the 16th day of the same month, each of the “ware Lease (or Investment in Warehouse), 10 million won in warehouse, fixed payment (legal guarantee of investment amount) for 15% in warehouse,” thereby making an advertisement on the business of an unspecified number of people in order to engage in the act of fund-raising without delay.

2. Defendant B, a representative director, committed a violation as described in paragraph (1) with respect to the Defendant’s business.

Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission shall provide for the act of fund-raising without permission as follows:

For the purpose of this Act, the term "fund-raising business without permission" means any business falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which engages in the business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes:

However, Defendant A advertised as “the purpose of raising funds from many unspecified persons”

Even if there is no evidence to deem that the advertisement was placed for the purpose of running such financing business, i.e., continuously repeating it.

(The mere fact that the “advertisement for raising funds” has been repeated three times is difficult to readily conclude the continuity and reflect of the “the act of raising funds with the intent of the above Defendant” itself. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the above Defendant had the “purpose of performing the act of raising funds without permission” at the time of posting the advertisement indicated in the facts charged.

In conclusion, each of the defendants is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because the case constitutes a case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

arrow