A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendants, at the office located in Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul E building 302 around June 4, 2017, purchased gold from the Red bean, and the victim F and G “Korea is running a business in which she purchased gold in the Red bean and returned to Japan, and the cash has been well enough.

If an investment of KRW 50 million is made, 500,000 shall be paid with interest of KRW 10,000 in one month, and the principal shall be paid without a framework of 3 months.

However, in fact, the Defendants did not use the funds for the business to purchase the funds from the victims, and did not have any intention or ability to pay the principal and interest to the victims because they did not use the funds for the business to purchase the funds, as well as for the plan to use personal debt repayment and office operating expenses.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to induce the victims as above, and to this end, on June 4, 2017, from the victims, the amount of KRW 45 million to the Saemaul Treasury account in the name of H designated by the Defendants, and the same month.

6. The recipient has received the remittance of the total of KRW 50 million, including KRW 5 million, to the same account.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. A protocol concerning suspect interrogation of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each police statement made to F and G;

1. Results of execution of warrant of seizure of H account;

1. An investment agreement and details of deposits;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 347 (1) and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act for the suspension of execution;

1. Defendant A of the community service order: An unfavorable circumstance is that the amount of money acquired by the Defendants for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act is considerable, and Defendant A has a record of having been punished several times for the same crime.

However, the defendants make confession of the crime of this case and repent of mistake, the defendant B paid the amount of damage and agreed with the victim, the defendant B did not have any record of punishment for the same crime, and others.