beta
서울남부지방법원 2019.01.31 2017고단6103

유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반등

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor of 1 year and 6 months, 10 months, 2 and 3, 8 months, 3 months, and 5 months, and 5 months, 5 months, and 5 months, respectively.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[criminal power] Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years and a fine of six million won for a violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act at the first instance court of Seoul Central District Court on September 14, 2017. The above judgment was finalized on March 27, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant A of "2017 Highest 6103" is the representative director of the main office in the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G H H, the Seoul, the Incheon, and the Busan, with 18 centers respectively located across the nation, and manages all the affairs against investors, including the business explanation of the above company. The defendant B, the defendant Eul, and the head office of each of the above companies, take charge of the business explanation against investors. The defendant C, as the management director of the above company, takes charge of the accounting and computer affairs. The defendant C, as the management director of the above company, has established the franchise business plan and takes charge of overseas business. The defendant D, as the business director of the above company, was the K Center, L, the M Center, the NO Center, the Q Center, the Q Center head, the NA head, the W Center head, the W Center head, the X, the X Center head, and the Z Center head.

No one shall engage in a business of raising funds from many unspecified persons, such as obtaining investments, etc. under the agreement to pay the total amount of investments or an amount in excess thereof in the future without obtaining authorization, permission, or making a registration under related Acts and subordinate statutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendants were willing to receive money under the pretext of the purchase price for goods as if they sold goods to the salespersons through the above center without obtaining authorization, permission, etc. with J et al., but did not receive money under the pretext of the purchase price for goods.

Accordingly, on November 16, 2015, the Defendants conspired with J et al. to the victim AB who caused investment explanation at the above head office office around November 16, 2015.