Defendant 1 and one other

Freeboard

Law Firm Hosung, Attorney Kim Jong-ro

Defendant 1 (Defendants in the Supreme Court and the appellate court judgment) shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, and by imprisonment for four months, respectively.

However, for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 2 shall be suspended.

1. Criminal records;

On December 21, 2010, Defendant 1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence of ten-month imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Seoul Southern District Court on December 21, 201, and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 19, 2010, and is currently under suspended sentence.

2. Criminal facts;

From May 2010 to August 30, 2010, Defendant 2 operated a private futures trading site where virtual futures trading (defluence gift) takes place after receiving 200 index of COS 200 offered at a futures exchange from May 201 to August 30, 201.

Under the current law, it is necessary to deposit more than 15 million won per one contract for futures trading, which is an exchange-traded derivatives. The above site was a business that, after inviting members who do not have such deposit money, allows them to make futures investment in the private site in connection with the KOS 200 index in the futures exchange center through HTS, and receives fees for each transaction and pays profits (in the event that members actually make an investment in money within the site and pay profits, the site operator shall pay such profits, and in the event that the members compensate for losses, they shall make the profits of the operator).

At the end of December 2010, Defendant 2, upon Defendant 1’s request from Defendant 1 to “a request to use the Nice gift program necessary to operate the Nice gift site”, offered the Nice gift program purchased at the time of the operation of the △△△△△△△, despite being aware that the Nice gift site was unable to obtain authorization from the financial institution, and Defendant 1 conspired to provide Defendant 1 with the Nice gift program purchased at the time of the operation of the △△△△△△△△△△. Defendant 1 newly registered the business and operate the private gift site such as the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△

Defendant 2 provided U.S. gift programs used at the △△△△△△△△△△△△ in the Buddhist Site located in Seoul, on January 7, 2011, and received KRW 20,000 from Defendant 1 as the price for such programs. Defendant 1, from January 7, 2011 to April 20 of the same year, established “○○○”, a private futures trading site, at the office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, without obtaining financial investment business authorization from the Financial Services Commission, established “○○○”, and recruited “KOSP 200 Futures Trading” and “CMFOF X” to raise members to deposit money with Defendant 1’s account, and set up KRW 15,10,100,000,000,000,000,0000 won for each of its members’ KRW 400,000,000,000,000,000 from each of the members’ respective futures trading agreements.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the Financial Services Commission to operate financial investment business without obtaining financial investment business authorization, and to establish facilities similar to the derivatives market established by the Korea Exchange.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. e-mail protocol for the Nonindicted Party

1. An investigation report (an investigation into matters related to the ○○○ website) - A written inquiry by an institution-authorized financial company;

1. Attachment of ○○○ trade details;

1. Investigation report (the details remitted by Defendant 1 to Defendant 2);

1. Previous convictions indicated in judgment: Investigation report (Attachment to written judgments), the background and results of confirmation;

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 44 subparag. 1, 27, 11, 386(2) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 2);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of the Criminal Act, the fact that there is no record of punishment, the circumstances of the crime, the elderly, etc.)

Defendant 1 is against the principle of good faith, but it is not well-founded even during the period of suspension of execution, and it is decided as per Disposition in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the fact that the crime of this case was led and the profits acquired are not significant.

Judge Cho Jong-chul