【Criminal Records of Crimes】 On May 12, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for six months with prison labor for a crime of aiding and abetting a violation of the Game Industry Promotion Act in the Gwangju District Court’s wooden Branch, and the judgment was finalized on February 16, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】 2016 Maz. 1535】

1. On November 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim C made a false statement to the effect that “The victim C may yield more than half of his/her investment effort to operate an adult game room at KRW 20 million per month, and return the principal of the investment to him/her,” in the mutual influent car page located in the upper Dong-dong, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si, Mapo-si.”

However, since the defendant thought that he was operating an adult game room only with the funds of the victim, even if he was paid money from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to normally operate the game room or return the principal of the investment to the victim.

Nevertheless, on November 13, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 5 million from the injured party to the Agricultural Cooperative (E) account in the name of the game site deposit in the name of D on November 13, 2015, and acquired the total amount of KRW 30,842,00 on nine occasions from around that time to December 2015, as shown in the attached crime list.

"2016 Highest 1641"

2. On November 10, 2015, the criminal defendant against the victim F made a false statement to the victim F, “I will use the operating funds to run the game room business for three months if I want to lend KRW 5 million, and pay 500,000 to the victim F by January 30, 2016, including 50,000 won as interest.”

However, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had a debt amounting to KRW 17 million in financial institutions, and there was no regular revenue, and the Defendant had already borrowed KRW 5 million from others. The said game room was also a plan to open and operate another person’s financial business without all of the Defendant’s funds, and thus, the Defendant was willing to borrow another person’s financial business and operate it as the borrowed money from the victim.