beta
Text
The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C1’s misapprehension of the legal principle was prosecuted for committing an offense against the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, etc., and the decision was finalized on February 16, 2013, which was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years on October 10, 2013 by a decision of the 2012Kadan1458 Decided February 8, 2013. Since the final crime and the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act are related to a single comprehensive offense, the judgment of acquittal of the instant charges should be sentenced. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant D’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. According to the record on Defendant C’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, Article 44 subparag. 1 and Article 11 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act was applied to the finalized crime, which was committed by the Defendant, by inviting its members to recruit its members during the operation of I, from May 22, 2002 to July 10, 2012, by allowing its members to deposit KRW 141,034,610 from 217 to 217, thereby engaging in an “FX” product transaction without authorization for financial investment business.
However, the instant crime was established by the Defendant’s opening of a financial investment instruments market or other similar facilities by receiving KRW 5,674,688 from its members over 11,023 times from its members from November 9, 201 to August 28, 201, when operating five U.S. futures trading sites, such as H, I, J, K, K, L, etc. The instant crime was also governed by Articles 444 subparag. 27, and 386(2) of the former Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.
Therefore, the crime of violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the crime of this case cannot be viewed as an inclusive crime committed by an unmanned criminal who is confirmed as above through the financial investment business.
Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230 Decided November 28, 2013 and Supreme Court Decision 201Do4230 Decided November 28, 201.