On March 13, 2016, the Defendant sent a telephone to the victim C, and said, “When a loss occurs without directly selling or selling futures options, it is very low that it will be seen as losses due to the automatic liquidation program, and at the same time, 2% interest per month shall be given upon lending money and the principal shall also be guaranteed.”

However, in fact, the Defendant used programs at the time, as well as the automatic trade using programs, and was engaged in the trade of futures options directly and severally by the Defendant, and the victim suffered a loss of 600 million won at the time of borrowing money, which was incurred by the victim, and was paid interest to the investors in an abnormal manner, which was appropriated for the return of the interest and principal of the investment of the investors in the last time, and there was no particular property under the name of the Defendant, so there was no intent or ability to repay the money borrowed to

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, received KRW 130 million from the victim to the U.S. Securities Account (D) in the name of the Defendant from the victim on March 13, 2016, and received KRW 130 million from the victim to the U.S. Securities Account (D) in the name of the Defendant. In addition, as described in the attached crime list, the Defendant received the remittance of KRW 280 million in total over three times from around that time to June 23, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. A criminal investigation report (examination of data);

1. Inquiry of transaction details, and application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a monetary consumption and lending contract;

1. Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The crime was committed by deceiving the victim of the instant money by deceiving the victim to the extent that the return of investment was not certain to the extent that the investor already suffered considerable loss with respect to the principal of investment as to the reasons for the sentencing of the alternative sentence of imprisonment with prison labor, and that the damage was a maximum amount, but the amount of damage was caused.