A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, and imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

However, this judgment is delivered against Defendant B.

Defendant

A is a person who actually engages in the bean products production and distribution business under the trade name of "D", and Defendant B is a person who has registered his/her business under the trade name of "D" and engages in the production and distribution business of the bean products together with Defendant A.

1. On February 2012, 2012, the Defendants concluded a contract with G Mart and H convenience store located across the country to acquire 600 million won with 15 victims F, etc. at the office of 401, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City E-building 401, which read, “The Defendants would pay 15% of the monthly investment to D companies as dividends,” and said, “The Defendants would pay 600 million won to D companies located in Maart and H convenience store located in the country, and the 15% of the total amount of investments to D companies would be paid within three months if part of the funds are short.”

However, there was no fact that the Defendants accepted D companies at KRW 60 million or entered into a supply contract with G Et and H convenience store in Korea. Since the establishment of D on November 18, 201, there was no profit of D companies from the victims to receive investments from the victims, and even if there was no other profit-making business, there was no ability to rapidly increase revenues within a short period by utilizing the said investment fund. Therefore, there was no choice but to take a method of making a repayment in full or in excess of the investment fund to the existing investors by using the investment fund attracting from junior investors. Accordingly, as long as the new investors continuously increase in water supply under such business structure, there was no intention or ability to pay the agreed high-rate allowance to the investors, such as the above victim F, etc., for the reason that the payment of the agreed high-rate allowance would not be possible.

Nevertheless, the Defendants are as above.