【Criminal Records】

1. On October 16, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and two months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Gwangju District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Gwangju Prison on January 3, 2015.

2. On September 20, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment for fraud at the Gwangju District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 26, 2017.

[Criminal facts] 2017 Highest 4013

1. The Defendant is the representative of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building 806, and E was in charge of attracting investors and managing funds in the above company.

At the above office on April 5, 2016, E pays the victim F a return on investment by purchasing and selling land to the local area (ju). If an investment is made, D will pay 4% of the amount of investment every day from the next day to 30 days in total.

“The term “for the purpose of this,” being transferred to the bank account (G) account in the name of the company in the name of the victim who believed that it was an investment, KRW 20 million on April 5, 2016, KRW 20 million on December 12, 2000 on the same month, KRW 18.2 million on April 19, 201, from the person who believed that it was an investment. The same month;

5. One million won with a new card made in the name of a victim, three million won with a Korean card, two million won with a lot card, two million won with a lot card, and the same month;

6. Our card obtained property and property gains of KRW 68.2 million in total by allowing the settlement of KRW 3.7 million.

In addition, the Defendant and the above E received 31,515,108 won in total from 43 victims of 113 times as investment proceeds in the following manner between April 3, 2016 and May 9, 2016, as described in the list of crimes in the attached Form F.

However, the above company operated by the defendant did not invest in the real estate even if it receives the investment from the victims, and even if it receives the investment from the victims, it did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and the dividend even if it received the investment from the next priority investors as the investment money received from the next priority investors.

Accordingly, the defendant is E.