However, with respect to Defendant B, a period of one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

[Criminal Records] Defendant A was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on September 6, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 14, 2017.

[Criminal facts]

1. On April 2015, from around March 2017 to March 2017, Defendant A, as the representative of C, has overall control over the overall management of the company, such as business explanation, investment attraction, and investment management, and Defendant B, as the honorary chairperson of Seoul, took charge of Defendant A’s affairs, such as investment solicitation, investment management, and company publicity, from around February 2017 to around March 2017.

2. The Defendant 2018 senior group 1529 is the representative of C who sets up “management consulting,” etc. for business purposes, and has overall control over the overall management of the Company, including business explanation, attracting investment, and managing investment funds.

The Defendant around August 10, 2016, at the office of the above company located in the 11th floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul E building, via F, a person in charge of investor solicitation, F, a person in charge of investor solicitation, raises enormous profits from the Victim G by investing in the auction of real estate, purchase and sale of buildings, beer, beer, business related to beer, etc. In the first month of investment in C, 5.5% in the first month of the first month, and 4% in the following month from the next month, and the principal can be found at any time at any time when the continued investment is maintained.

“A false statement” was made.

However, the fact that C was not a institution-authorized financial company, but did not have invested in the above profit-making business, or did not have profit from the investment, and operated the business in the so-called “return prevention” method that redeems the principal and profit from the existing investors in order by using the investment funds attracting by the next-order investors, and eventually, as long as a new investor is not induced, C was unable to pay the agreed high-rate profit so even if it was paid from the person who suffered damage, there was no intent or ability to pay the agreed principal or profit.

Ultimately, the defendant belongs to the above false statements.