However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date the judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant A, as an operator of the Company E, operates F stores in the name of the said Company, and Defendant B, around May 2016, invested KRW 125 million in the F Store G operated by Defendant A and did not receive any payment of the profits promised, Defendant A was accused of fraud.

1. The Defendants’ joint crime Defendant A filed a complaint against Defendant B in fraud on the grounds that Defendant B did not pay investment profits to the F Burial G, and Defendant B would be replaced with investors.

At the same time, Defendant B agreed to receive investments from other persons to repay the existing investments, and Defendant B agreed to receive their investments.

Accordingly, the Defendants received KRW 100,000 from the victim H as investment money and conspired to substitute for Defendant B’s repayment of investment money.

Defendant

A on February 27, 2017, in the mutual influent restaurant located near J hotel located in Busan metropolitan Daegu on the part of Busan metropolitan Daegu, A, the victim H may bring profits equivalent to KRW 7,00,000 per month to every 7,000 won when investing in F stores G.

Inasmuch as there are existing investors who wish to go beyond the store due to the circumstances, the phrase “the amount of KRW 100 million is to be paid to the investors.” Defendant B made a false statement to the effect that “the victim was asked to ask whether the F store G gains enter well,” and “the victim was asked to ask for the F store G revenues.”

However, in fact, Defendant A was unable to pay wages to employees at the time due to cumulative business depressions of F Burial, and even if Defendant A did not have an intent or ability to pay profits equivalent to KRW 7 million per month even if he did not receive investments from the damaged party, such as the seizure of sales claims of F Burial G due to delinquency in the four major insurance premiums and taxes.

In addition, Defendant B was invested in the F Burial G, but did not receive the profit properly, and due to the above circumstances, Defendant B was aware that it was prohibited from receiving the profit even if the victimized person made an investment.