2012 Highest 2553, 3703 (Joint) 4798 (Joints), 2013 Highest 735 (Joints)

Fraud, Violation of the Labor Standards Act

2012 early 1396, 2013 early 109, 2013 early 196

100 (70 - 1), the project

Incheon Residence

Standard place of registration

Haak, Shin Ho-ho, Kim Jong-hun, Jin-hun (prosecutions) and establishment leap (Trial)

Law Firm Purme

Attorney Yang Sung-sung, creating State, and leapia

1. Kim 00

2. Optional00; and

3. Kim 00

4. Former 00

Law Firm Cheong-han

Attorney Lee Dong-hwan (Attorney Lee Dong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

June 26, 2013

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

The defendant pays 142,50,00 won by fraud to Kim 00 who is an applicant for compensation, and 140,165,00 won by fraud to 00 who is an applicant for compensation.

This order may be provisionally executed.

The application for compensation filed by Kim 00, the previous 00 is dismissed.

Criminal History [2012 Highest 2553]

Since May 2010, the Defendant is a representative director of a agricultural company A (hereinafter referred to as "A") established for the purpose of distributing and selling agricultural and fishery products from around May 201 to the present.

The Defendant introduced investors to the Korea Business Start-up Support Center, etc. (State) in which the Defendant was appointed in advance, by means of paying high-ranking fees equivalent to 15 to 20% of the investments per case, to investors. The Defendant: (a) the Defendant was a promising company that the Defendant operated by the Defendant for the stable operation of a department store or large-scale discount store; (b) the Defendant paid 4 to 5% of the investments every month; and (c) the Defendant prepared a consignment operation contract, etc. to return the agreed deposit at the expiration of the contract term; and (d) intended to invite investors.

However, since the establishment of A, there was no stable financial basis, as well as capital 50 million won, and there was no few sales stores located in department stores, etc., and there was no business structure that makes it difficult for A to operate a business in a way of making payments for fixed dividends to existing investors by making use of investment funds attracting subordinated investors, such as paying high fees and excessive fixed dividends, etc. in the course of attracting investors individually through a start-up consulting company. In addition, from March 201, the financial situation has become worse to the degree that it is difficult to cope with fixed dividends, employees' benefits, etc. as the sales volume of raw disaster, etc. in Japan has decreased due to the reduction of fixed dividends, etc. to investors.

Furthermore, most of the stores premised on the operation of investors and salesroom occupants are merely an event for the salesroom, and they do not have any actual salesroom, or they did not have any salesroom, so even if they received money under the entrusted operation contract with the victims, they did not have any intent or ability to pay a fixed dividend during the agreed period and return the deposit after the expiration of the agreed period.

On May 17, 2010, the Defendant, at the Korea Business Start-up Office located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Seoul, 823, provided that “AK department store is in operation of a specialized store at the on-site store at the on-site store of the department department of AK department store.” When investing in the above store, the Defendant made a false statement to pay the fixed amount of income of KRW 3 million monthly entrusted operation. However, in fact, the AK department store was in operation only for the event of the sales, and did not actually have any actual sales, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the fixed amount of income even if receiving money from the victim.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received KRW 5 million from the victim to A account on the same day, and received KRW 50 million in total, including KRW 20,000,000 from the victim, and KRW 28,5 million on the 28th day of the same month.

From the above to June 30, 2011, the Defendant obtained total amount of KRW 960,000 from the nine victims, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form, and acquired it by fraud.

[2012 Highest 3703]

Since May 2010, the Defendant is a representative director of a agricultural company A (hereinafter referred to as "A") established for the purpose of distributing and selling agricultural and fishery products from around May 201 to the present.

The Defendant introduced investors by means of paying a high amount of 15 to 20% of their investments per case to the Investment Brokerage Company (ju), Korea Business Start-up Support Center, and 119, which are selected in advance. The Defendant: (a) as a promising company that A operated by the Defendant for stable operation of a sales store by selling it in a department store or a large retailer; and (b) as a promising company that A is in charge of entrusted operation, the Defendant made monthly payments for 4 to 5% of its investments and made a contract for entrusted operation to return the deposit upon the expiration of the contract term, and made the agreement for entrusted operation to the effect that A will return the deposit upon the expiration of the contract term.

As a result, the Defendant, at around February 2011, at the office of 119, 'business start-up 119' in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) had a code that can sell camblings to B; (b) if he sells cambings by installing a cambling unit at that office, monthly sales will be 30 million won. If he/she invests KRW 150 million, he/she shall be entrusted with the operation and pay the final profit of KRW 6 million each month; (b) if he/she invests KRW 150,00,000,000,000 won in the name of the facility expenses, excluding KRW 30,000,000 in the name of 150,000,000,000 won in the name of the principal of the deposit 12,20,000 won in the name of the contract for two years.

However, in fact, since its establishment, there was no stable financial basis other than KRW 50,000,000, and there was no few sales stores located in department stores, etc., to pay profits. As above, in the process of attracting investors in a discriminatory manner, such as paying high-amount fees through a start-up consulting company, etc., the financial situation continued to worsen, and the payment of high-amount fees and excessive fixed profits, etc., which led to a situation where the financial situation should be paid more than KRW 50,00,00 per month with fixed profits for existing investors, and for this purpose, it had a business structure that has a business structure that has no choice but to operate a business in a way that redeems fixed dividends to existing investors by using investment funds attracting from subordinated investors, including victims, and since March 2011, it was difficult to cope with the fixed dividends to investors, employees, etc. while reducing the paid dividends, etc. from now to time of the Japanese nuclear accident.

Furthermore, most of the stores that the Defendant concluded a contract for entrusted operation with investors including victims are operated simply for a limited period of time according to the plan for the event of the department store, but not for a long-term occupant, so even if the Defendant received investments from the victims, it did not have the intent or ability to pay the fixed profit during the contract period and return the deposit after the expiration of the contract period.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving him/her from the victim on March 2, 201, transferred KRW 23 million to A account on April 29 of the same year, KRW 30 million on April 29 of the same year, and KRW 20 million on April 30 of the same year, respectively, and acquired KRW 150 million in total by deceiving the victim on May 30 of the same year.

[2012 Highest 4798]

From May 2010, the Defendant introduced investors as the representative director of A Incorporated Agricultural Company A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) established for the purpose of distributing and selling agricultural and fishery products, etc., by the method of paying a large amount of commission equivalent to 15 to 20% of their investments per case in the Korea Business Start-up Support Center, which is an enterprise opening in advance, and the business start-up 119, etc. from among the investment already selected. However, the Defendant introduced investors as a promising company for stable operation by selling a specialized store in the department store or the large retailer, etc., and made efforts to prepare a consignment contract, etc. to return the agreed deposit at the expiration of the contract term and raise investors.

1. Fraud related to a contract for entrusted operation of a store in a lot store;

On May 20, 201, the Defendant: (a) at the Korea Business Start-up Center in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, on May 20, 201, the Victim Kim ** (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Business Start-up Center in Gangnam-gu”); and (b) on May 20, 201, the Defendant had a monthly sales revenue of at least 20 million won. (c) When investing 100 million won in the name of a security deposit, the Defendant made every month payments of at least 1.5% of the above sales; and (d) if the monthly sales amount falls short of 20 million won, the said security deposit will be returned immediately after 2 years or 20 million won.

However, the above A did not have a stable financial basis in addition to capital 50,000 won, and there was no few sales stores located in department stores, etc., and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return the monthly revenue, even if it received money from the victim in a situation where the Defendant did not properly perform the obligation to refund deposit and pay wages from the existing investors, even though it did not receive money from the victim, in the course of attracting investors in a discriminatory manner, such as paying high-amount fees and excessive fixed dividends, etc. through a start-up consulting company. As above, the Defendant continued to operate the business in the manner of preventing the so-called "re-called" repayment of fixed dividends by making use of investment funds attracting subordinated investors, etc., and the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return the deposit or deposit money as agreed upon.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received a total of KRW 50 million from the victim on the same day, and KRW 50 million on June 14, 201, and KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from the victim and acquired it by deception.

2. Fraud related to the franchise store delivery entrustment contract in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City;

On September 1, 201, the Defendant, at the above A office located in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government additional Dong on September 1, 201, planned to open the above victim Kim ** to open the ice ice clock in Incheon Bupyeong-gu *** to open the ice clock in the 1st floor of the building of riuria, but if investing KRW 70,000,000,000, the Defendant would pay an amount equivalent to 60% of the monthly net profit and return the said investment money at the time of the expiration of the contract.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return the monthly proceeds to the victim as a normal payment or to return the investment funds to the victim, even if the Defendant did not receive the money from the victim due to bad financial standing.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim as above, received the remittance of KRW 50 million on the same day from the victim, and KRW 70 million on September 2, 201, and KRW 70 million on the same day from the victim and acquired it by defrauded.

[2013 Highest 735]

The defendant is an employer who employs seven full-time workers in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and operates "A (State) - a food business operator" - a food business operator.

피고인은 2012. 4. 27. 부터 2012. 6. 11. 까지 위 사업장에서 근무한 피해자 최▲▲의 2012. 5. 임금 2, 500, 000원, 2012. 6. 임금 916, 666원을 당사자간 지급기일 연장에 관한 합의 없이 퇴직일로부터 14일 이내에 지급하지 아니한 것을 비롯하여 별지 체불내역의 기재와 같이 피해자 5명의 임금 합계 6, 585, 773원을 지급기일 연장에 관한 합의 없이 퇴직일로부터 14일 이내에 지급하지 아니하였다 .

Summary of Evidence

[Attachment 2012 Highest 2553]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. 증인 박 * *, 최△△, 김00, 곽 @ @, 이 @ @, 이▣▣, 서 @ @, 김00, 임00, 김●●, 신 @ @ 의 각 법정진술

1. Partial statement from the witness;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol concerning stuffing file;

1. Investigation report (suspects submission, department stores, filing of sales and tax invoices), investigation report (in cases of persons in charge of fishery products belonging to the head office of a department store, statement of the same kind of telephone, etc. similar to the same offense), investigation report (in cases of payment guarantee), investigation report (in cases of home frybry and telephone communications) (report on home frying and telephone communications);

1. Consulting report on business start-up, e-mail, consulting service contract (24,29,64), Dong business contract (25,30), records of passbook transactions (26,31), A data, details of transactions by period of receipt, consignment operation contract (42,5,75,96, 159), consignment business performance contract (43,63, 161), business notification certificate (45,98,105), one carbook payment guarantee document, Internet information service contract (20,65,84, 65, 75, 71, 77, 97, 77, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 17, 2000, 100, 200, 100,000,000,000,000,00);

[2012 Highest 3703]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness 00;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of the accused by prosecution;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of written opinions on related cases), investigation report (Analysis of details of expenditure of earnings);

1. A contract for entrusted operation and details of transactions;

[2012 Highest 4798]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness Kim* Legal Statements *

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. A copy of each protocol of examination of the accused by prosecution;

1. Investigation reports and records of sales status, including data on the current status of investigation and sales, reports on investigation and calculation, and details of entrance and departure;

1. A consignment operation contract, franchise store issuance contract, details of passbook transactions, and payment guarantee certificate;

[2013 Highest 735]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. 최▲▲, 허 @ @, 임, 박 # # 의 각 진술서, 최 # # 의 진정서

1. Application of each document management card and accompanying documents, and each accompanying document;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 347(1) of the Criminal Code, Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, and choice of imprisonment, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

1. Orders for compensation and sentence of provisional execution;

Kim0, 00: Article 25(1)1, Article 31(1), (2), and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

1. Dismissal of a compensation order;

Kim 00, previous 00: Article 25(3)3 and Article 32(1)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear)

Defendant’s assertion and judgment (2012 Highest 2553, 3703, 4798)

1. Summary of the defendant's assertion

Only the form of an investment agreement is entrusted operation, and its substance is not an investment in a specific store, but an investment in the entire business of A, and the victims were well aware of such circumstances. Therefore, even if a specific store has not been established, the victims are not deceiving the victims. Moreover, the victims are paid monthly fixed income in good faith on March 201, and there is no intention or ability to pay the fixed income from the beginning, because of the dispute between the Japan and the Japan, which had been in charge of the full-scale sales around September 201 and the fact that the passbook was attached to the company’s name, it is impossible for the company to pay the fixed income from the beginning.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the victims do not invest in a specific store. As such, it appears that the victims did not directly visit the store as alleged by the Defendant, or that they did not confirm whether they have any salesroom. However, the victims of this case have no choice but to take advantage of the following circumstances, i.e., the victims’ failure to directly operate the store. The victims of this case’s investment contract concluded an investment agreement with respect to the store which was proposed to be located in the beginning, and it appears that they were not doubtful as to whether they would have made sales store payments, and that there were considerable amounts of fees to the victims, and that there were no specific reasons to believe that they would have been in charge of brokerage, such as the Korea Association of Business Start-up in the middle, and that there were no changes in their sales contract to the extent that they would have made an investment contract to the extent that the victims would have been aware that they would have made an investment in the specific store, and that there were no further specific profits to the extent that they would have made an investment in the store, including the content of the contract.

B. According to the evidence of the following facts: (a) the Defendant’s 20th anniversary of its initial sales revenue from the 2010-5-201-200-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-60-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-70-7.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant was engaged in an act of fund-raising without permission through the Korea Business Start-up Association, etc., but it received money from the victims under the pretext of investment in a specific store by deceiving the victims who did not make any sale in order to disguise the recruitment of the franchise store owners to start a business in the form or by deceiving them as if the saleroom occupants have been confirmed. Ultimately, the method of evasion of law became the means of actively deceiving the victims, which is the means of inducing the victims of the crime. Since the damage amount in this case is large and a large number of victims are not recovered, and most victims have not reached an agreement with them, it is inevitable to sentence the defendant to be sentenced to punishment as to the defendant, because it is more favorable that the defendant paid 250 million won under the pretext of profits, etc., and it is inevitable to sentence the defendant as to the defendant, taking into comprehensive account all the sentencing conditions specified in the argument in this case, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct

Judges Jeong-il

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.