Defendant

F. .

Defendant A has not conspiredd with the introduction of AJ, AK, AL, etc. into the Republic of Korea with AI, allocation of roles of members, management of subordinate business operators of Defendant A, etc.

Defendant

A has not been responsible for the management of sub-contractors, and there is no fact that A has been a core role such as introducing AI projects to many and unspecified persons or explaining investments.

Defendant

A There was no fact that the AI side led Korean investors in the Switzerland events held around May 2015.

There is no fact that Defendant A, with respect to deception, had deceptioned “AI is an investment product that can avoid taxes.”

AI is a company that has invested in normal index futures in Australia.

With respect to the intention of defraudation, Defendant A was not able to suspect the falsity of AI products at the time of initial investment, and there was no problem in AI projects in China around March 2015 through Defendant B and F.

Defendant

A also has invested a considerable amount of money, and even after the suspension of dividend payment, there is a fact that it has been invested with loans under the name of a parent.

In order to recover damage caused by AI problems, efforts were made on a multi-face scale.

With respect to the amount of damage caused by the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Acts (hereinafter “the Act”), the lower court recognized that “Defendant A received totaling KRW 29,261,329,221 from the victims over a total of 1537 occasions, such as (1) a crime inundation.”

However, most of the above damages are not received by Defendant A, but deposited into the account known by Defendant F.

Defendant

A has never been recommended, and most of them are AP, etc.