1. Fraud;

A. On January 2018, the Defendant introduced the name of the Defendant in the name of “C”, and registered another person’s photograph posted on the Internet in the Kakakakao Stockholm case with the intent of selling it to the effect that “B may divide it into part of the company’s scheduled virtual currency in return for the payment of the said virtual currency to the company,” and that “B may divide it into part of the company’s scheduled virtual currency to receive it from the ICO if the ICCO deposited in return for the payment of the said virtual currency.” On January 11, 2018, the Defendant intended to list it to the effect that “A” and “B” will be sold to the victim through the Kakao Stockholm through the Kao Stockholm. < Amended by Act No. 15134, Mar. 23, 2018>

However, it is unclear at the time whether D was listed or not, and the defendant would receive fees from those who did not know the name and identity at all, and the ICO solicited those who would purchase the scheduled virtual currency. Even if the victim received the virtual currency, bitM X M M& M transactions attempted to do gambling transactions such as gambling transactions with a maximum of 10 times the price increase or decline of bitcos, and did not intend to purchase them on behalf of the victim.

In addition to the victim B, the Defendant received virtual currency from several persons, and from May 2018, the assets were to purchase and distribute the virtual currency which was initially promised to do so, the Defendant realized the virtual currency received from the victim and prevents the return.