Law, three upbeat officers acquitted of false trafficking

2020-02-03 16:31:10

The court pleaded not guilty to the prosecution's suspicion of buying and selling fraud on the upbeat domestic cryptocurrency exchange.

On December 31, 12 detectives from Seoul Southern District Court (Ju Sang-yong, Oh) pleaded not guilty to three cedar officials.

In December 2018, three prosecutors, including Chairman Song Chi-hyeong, Finance Director Nam Mo (43) and Quant Team Leader Kim Mo (32), were accused of fraud under preliminary records and fraud under specific economic weighted punishment law.

It was blown while indicted.

The prosecution sentenced Mr. Song to seven years in prison and a fine of one billion won, three years for Nammo, and four years for Kim.

The Tribunal found it difficult to accept the allegations applied in light of the market environment in which the relevant allegations were not clear and the law was not established.

First of all, the prosecution's evidence is unclear as to whether or not to charge false assets through ID8, which served as an issue.

The prosecution claimed that Upbit had made a fake operation as if he had a KRW 122.1 billion won and a cryptocurrency on the exchange with an arbitrary account, ID8.

In addition, it sold 15,000 bitcoins and gained unfair profit of 149.1 billion won.

In response, the cedars argued that the exchange was not unfairly profitable for the purpose of providing liquidity.

In particular, it emphasized that the related activities did not harm any upbeat members.

The court said, “The defendant's testimony was confirmed that the facts were not clear because the related computer information was inconsistent.

"We can't prove that we have fewer cryptocurrencies than we have to return to upbit members," he said.

“Upbit informed its members about the purpose of supplying liquidity to the relevant behavior at the beginning of its establishment (bilateral transaction).

The alleged fraudulent trade has not had a significant impact on the upbit membership. ”

In addition, since there are no relevant laws and regulations on liquidity providers, it is impossible to consider that the cryptocurrency exchange should ban liquidity supply without considering post-war circumstances.

There is no legal obligation to notify. ”

Meanwhile, the prosecution did not disclose its plan for appealing the trial court's innocence.