Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged of this case, although Defendant A did not have conspired to conduct a foreign exchange business without registration with Defendant B, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) In the instant case, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the account of Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”) was not used, and that Defendant B did not participate in the remittance as the representative director of Defendant C’s Republic of Korea, and that there is no reason to apply both punishment provisions to Defendant C, and that Defendant C was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The court below found Defendant B guilty of the facts charged in this case without any ground to register with the Minister of Finance and Economy since Defendant B’s act in the Republic of Korea cannot be seen as foreign exchange business. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles,
2) On December 4, 2012, the Defendant mistakens that the act indicated in the instant facts charged is permitted by the law in accordance with the response to questioning by the Ministry of Finance and Economy. Although such mistake constitutes a mistake in the law with legitimate grounds, the lower court convicting the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
(c)
The sentence sentenced by the court below (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence in October; 2 years of suspended sentence in October; and 3 years of suspended sentence in October; and 20 million won in case of Defendant C) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. Circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to Defendant A’s solicitation, namely, that Defendant A had received the daily table, etc. on deposit money in exchange from Defendant B as the main day, and gave Defendant B instructions (Defendant A was punished due to violation of the Foreign Exchange Transactions Act, etc.).