Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two and half years, and by imprisonment for a period of one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

【Criminal Records】

1. Defendant A was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for fraud, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on July 6, 2006, and the execution of the above sentence was terminated at the Seoul Central District Court on March 5, 2007. ② On February 4, 2015, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the suspension of the execution to six months of imprisonment for a crime of violating the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act; the said judgment was finalized on April 7, 2015; ③ on June 3, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court sentenced the suspension of the execution of six months of imprisonment to six months of imprisonment for fraud, and became final and conclusive on June 11, 2015.

2. On January 14, 2010, Defendant B was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, and three years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2010. ② On September 28, 2010, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced Defendant B to one year of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act and two years of suspended execution, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 11, 2010.

[Criminal facts] 2015 Highest 4347

1. Defendant A, along with Defendant E, operates a multi-level company G, a corporation with 501 in Gangnam-gu Seoul F Building, in collusion with E, and around June 17, 2008, Defendant A paid 50% of the principal and interest after the month when it invested in the excellent fund, which is the main place of operations, in collusion with the victim H at the above G office around June 17, 2008.

The phrase “ makes a false statement.”

However, the Defendant did not have any idea to use the borrowed money from the damaged party for stock investment, and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay the principal and interest of the borrowed money to the injured party, as it was called “refiscing to return the money borrowed from the damaged party” to repay the profits of the existing investors.

The defendant deceiving the victim as above, and he received 80 million won from the victim to the national bank account in the name of E on the same day from the victim, and acquired 80 million won from May 16, 2008.

7. By April 7, 200, a total of 21 times from five victims, such as in the list of offenses in the annexed sheet.