2017 Highest 1118, 2018 Highest 12 (Joint)

(a) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

(c) Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act;

1. A;

2. B

Instigating, stigating, and double-stigating trials

Attorney Han-chul (for all the defendants)

May 4, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for four years and seven years, respectively.

Criminal facts

Defendant B, a company that sells online products advertising online in the multi-stage form as if profits are generated through the bitcoin transaction using the artificial intelligence computer ‘D' and received profits, Defendant B, as a first-class seller in the Republic of Korea, established and operated a stock company E (hereinafter referred to as “E” from C Korea Co., Ltd. to E, Ltd., on October 4, 2016) in order to sell the above online products in the Republic of Korea. Defendant A, a person who is a director of the above E, the Defendants, and the Defendants, a person who is employed as the above E, have an explanation of investment in the online products of C to many and unspecified persons, and have planned to receive and receive investments in the multi-stage manner.

1. Fraud;

The Defendants conspired to invite investors for online goods to many and unspecified persons from around December 2015 to around Seoul, 2015, and “the amount of money paid by the investors is transferred to the headquarters in the form of non-coin, and the head office is paid by non-coin through crowdfunding and non-coin transactions. The amount of money can be paid if the price of non-coin is reduced, and there is no risk of loss. D's 120 U.S. computers can be purchased and sold to the low country and paid 20 U.S. dollars in 15 U.S. dollars in 200 to 30 U.S. dollars in 25 U.S. dollars in 205(30 U.S. dollars in 205). It is also possible to receive 5 U.S. dollars in 10 to 30 U.S. dollars in 205(300 U.S. dollars in 205) for each investment amount.

However, in fact, it is unclear whether C is able to pay high-income profits continuously through bitcoin transactions by the computer called "D", and the profits listed in C's website are merely the so-called "point", and there was no value in itself. In addition, the details that the Defendants purchased bitcos among the funds that the Defendants received from many and unspecified investors as investment deposits are limited to part of the details that the Defendants purchased bitcos, and rather, there was an exchange of 1,100 won for the investors requesting the payment of profits from the investment, and therefore, it was a situation in which it was impossible to pay the investment principal to investors, as the subordinated investment amount does not increase sharply.

The Defendants conspired to explain the investment in the above manner and received KRW 373,80,00,00 from the victim GO on September 27, 2016, and received KRW 415,80,000 on the same day from the victim H, and acquired KRW 87,29,746,630 from January 6, 2016 to October 14, 2017, as indicated in the attached Table 2.

2. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act;

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or actually conduct any financial transaction by pretending the transaction of goods, etc. using a multi-stage sales organization or any similar organization comprised of persons who have joined such organization.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to explain the investment in C online goods in the manner described in paragraph (1) at the time, at the place, and in the manner described in paragraph (1), and formed a multi-level organization with three or more stages of joining C online goods as a intermediary for support allowances from 1 to 2 sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-sub].

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness H, G, I, J, and K;

1. Partial statement of L witnesses in the first trial record;

1. Some protocol of suspect examination of Defendant B by the police (2 times);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of M or N (No. 182, No. 191);

1. A copy of the protocol of interrogation of some police officers (No. 30 No. 1);

1. Statement of the police about P;

1. Each internal report (to track the domain name of an investment web site which is bitcoin, to screen Crops and to close the terms and conditions of an investment web site which is bitcoin);

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of a photograph on the search site, attachment of a photograph related to an account, attachment of a photograph of screen pictures, identification of group C and heads of branches under subparagraph 4 of the number of seized articles, analysis of the E corporate account and revision of the list of crimes), request for examination data related to bitcoin, analysis of evidence seized in the suspect's office, report of the E-mail sales business report, B personal Qup account analysis case, B's personal Qup account analysis case 5), attachment of a copy of the company register, E corporate account CD, and submission of value-added tax return);

1. The output of each three sites of Korea, E-branch contract;

1. Recording files of R delegations, A's recording files, B's lecture files, and video works of a branch office, each of which falls under subparagraphs 5 through 12;

Application of Statutes

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

Defendants: Articles 347(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 58(1)4 of the latter part of Article 58(1)4 and Article 24(1)1(b) of the Visit Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the fact of de facto monetary transaction; hereinafter referred to as “de facto monetary transaction”); Articles 347(1) and 30 (the

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

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

Judgment on the Defendants and the defense counsel's assertion: As to fraud

1. Summary of the assertion

A. It emphasized that there was no explanation that investors can obtain high-income profits, and rather, the principal is not guaranteed.

B. C invests in the exchange via Bitcoin intermediary, which can be realized at any time, and is able to make a high profit by using Tccoin intermediary, which is a crowdfunding program. In fact, many investors have gained a considerable profit through C, and thus there was no deception from investors. In addition, all investors were registered as C in the manner of new purchase of Bitcoin and so-called so-called “personal coin purchase.” Ultimately, most of the investment funds have been used for investors’ membership registration, and there was no deception from investors.

2. Determination

(a) Basic facts: C’s operating methods;

First of all, the method of operation of C, which is acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, is as follows, on the premise that the defendants and defense counsel's arguments are judged.

1) C operates a website (S) that manages the accounts and earnings of its members and does not know any other entity. If a member enters the account and password on the website and then opens a log, it is indicated that the earnings listed in USD and Bitcoin (hereinafter referred to as “points”) on the electronic wallets for each account. A member may create two sub-accountss for each account and may create a sub-account under his/her own account again under his/her own name. In addition, points contained in an electronic wallets may be purchased, transmitted, recovered, and recovered, but it is impossible to transmit points only between the accounts that are in a relationship of lineal ascendant and descendant on the multi-stage structure, and between the accounts in a relationship of protection.

2) A new member is not allowed to join C alone, and the existing member must have access to his account and create a new account to the lower account. If C transmits the temporary password to the e-mail address entered in the account, the member may access to the account using it.

3) Points are indicated as USD and Bitcos with its value indicated. However, the unit of fixed value is USD, and the corresponding bitcos value changes depending on the fluctuation in the market price of bitcos. Members may purchase C’ investment goods using points (in the case of regular members selected by most members for the convenience of explanation, such as administrative members, group members, and regular members; hereinafter in this case, the same shall apply) and the profits paid by investment goods shall also be accumulated in the e-mail. Members may purchase C’s investment goods by bitcos with points provided as profits. Members may purchase them again by collecting points provided as profits.

4) Points purchase and recovery can be made only bitcos. If a member files an application for points purchase, C shall inform C of the amount corresponding to the bitcos in accordance with the market price of the bitcos and the address to be withdrawn therefrom, and if a member withdraws bitcos from the bitco exchange within 15 minutes to the above address in the bitco exchanges, points shall be included in the bitcos exchange. If a member files an application for points recovery, C shall withdraw the points applied for, based on the market price of the bitcos at the time of the application, and transfer them to the address in which the bitcos entered by the member.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court whether the Defendants explained that they would have been able to obtain high profit, the Defendants could obtain high profit if they invest in C as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment when recruiting investors.

1) In the event that the Defendants provided investment explanations, the fact that the Defendants did not engage in the act of fund-raising without delay, such as guaranteeing the principal and fixed interest rate, can be acknowledged (Evidence 1 through 3). However, the above evidence is either extracted only a part of the contents of the Defendants’ investment explanations, and it does not necessarily conflict with the explanation that the Defendants may not guarantee the principal and fixed interest rate, and the explanation that they may obtain profits from the investment. Therefore, the Defendants’ investment explanations should be examined as a whole.

2) At around July 2017, the Defendants’ attending the opening of the Guro Branch: (a) the Defendants and R continued to make an equity investment in the Guro branch; (b) the Defendants and R have set up points more than KRW 7 per day as daily allowance (dily bronus); and (c) there have been a lot of prices of bitcoin in the future; and (d) accordingly, profits increase accordingly, the Defendants may obtain profits (R shall be KRW 8.2 million within one year if investments are made in KRW 88.2 million) (R shall be KRW 88,200,00) (R shall be KRW 400,000). In light of the fact that the Defendants were made without the involvement of the Defendants, the said opening of the business was determined to be consistent with the contents of the investment explain by the Defendants.

3) The Defendants asserted to the effect that, if they invest USD 1,00 as regular members, USD 4-12 as daily allowances are paid 300 times. Since 35% of the points accumulated up to every 75 times among 300 times is deducted from three-time fees, C’s total daily allowances are USD 885 ($ 4, X 300 x USD 75, X 300 x 335/100 x 3 times). As such, the Defendants do not guarantee the principal amount of USD 1,000. However, even if a member is assumed to have continued to receive USD 40,000 as daily allowances, the Defendants are able to receive KRW 20 as recommendation allowances and receive KRW 78 x 75 x 70 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 7 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 7 5 x 5 5 x 5 3 x . . . . .

4) From No. 9 (Investment Related Documents, Evidence No. 5 books against Defendant A) seized, “1,00 .............................. per account’s average daily allowance per account is about KRW 8,00, monthly average 22,000 ?.......3 million per month when the account was made, KRW 130,00,000 per month, and KRW 760,000 per month, and KRW 3,435,00 per month’s total revenue + KRW 13,535,00 (a........, value increase per bitco value increase). In light of the above fact that the Defendants were not aware of the fact that there was no possibility that the above Defendants were 30,000,000 investors in the document and the document No. 271, Dec. 17, 201>

(i)a unclear entity of C;

A) Since it is difficult to know who C is a legal entity, its representative, and its constituent members, it is difficult to identify who is the party to the contract who sold the investment product. Furthermore, the address, contact address, and e-mail address of the head office in Pakistan cannot be confirmed, and the member can contact with C only through the 'Support Report’ function on the website, and the website manager is also in a closed state. The Defendants are also in a closed state (No. 32). However, there is no reasonable reason for C to conceal such substance.

B) There is no objective data about C’s total amount of investment, status of assets held, status of assets held, and past investment yield. The Defendants also stated that there is no way for C to create a lot of daily profit by trading with a bitco and to verify how the profit is distributed to its members through any settlement procedure.

C) If the situation is so, even if C had a fact of sponsoring various external events (Evidence 4, 38), it is difficult to recognize the substance of C that actually operates bitcos trading solely on these facts.

2) Domination of profit-making business C

(a)the source of use of obscure investments;

① The use of the investment funds received as Bitcoin is very important factor in investment judgment. Nevertheless, the Defendants are 50% for profit-making business, and the remainder 50% of the investment funds are claimed to be distributed to the existing members (Evidence 7), 50%, and 50% of the investment funds, and the remainder 50% of the investment funds is used as the operation of the head office, the mining company’s service expenses, the event expenses, etc. (the three-time prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant A). The contents of the investment funds are not consistent. As can be seen, the Defendants do not know about where the investment funds are used, where the investment funds are offered, whether the recommendation allowances, the bonus, and the rating allowances are paid from the member’s subordinate marketing, or whether the remaining 50% of the investment funds are distributed.

② Even according to the business opening statement submitted by the Defendants, the acquisition of mining contract (not deemed to mean the business of extracting bitcoin), fees (influoration, withdrawal), the realization of financial interests, and the crypt trading has not been found in the contents of each business.

B) As seen earlier than the excessive yield, C shall use only 500 US$1,000 which is 50% out of 1,000, for profit-making business, and the daily allowances to be paid to regular members shall be USD 885, USD 7, USD 1,548.75 on a daily basis. For the convenience of calculation, the daily allowances shall be assumed to be KRW 15 months, and the annual average rate of return shall be calculated without considering time value, approximately 41.6% on a daily allowance ($ 85, USD 500) / 500, USD 147.8% on a daily allowance ($ 1,548.75 - USD 500) / 500 on an annual average of USD 15 months on a yearly basis, if the annual average rate of return is calculated without considering time value, the rate shall be much higher than the annual allowance of USD 41.6% on a daily allowance.

C) Revenue uncertainty arising from the transaction of Bitcoin

① The Defendants asserted that “D” is the main profit-making business of “C” and “D”, which is performed in connection with the Bitcoin exchange among the whole world. However, the evidence (Evidence No. 6-1 through No. 3) submitted by the Defendants relating to D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s algorithm general algorithm 11) is not provided, and only explain the B’s ald’s algorithm’s algorithm algorithm 11. Moreover, contrary to the Defendants’ assertion that it connects the Bitcoin exchange in the whole world of 120, it appears that the Defendants, including “V,” which is the Hong Kong’s coding exchange, are traded only on the 9 coding exchange.

(2) The Defendants directly viewed D’s bitccoin in the event held at C’s head office, and argued D’s loss (Evidence No. 55), but there is doubt as to whether the existence of a profitability-friendly trading program can be confirmed on a yearly basis, and the Defendants do not have understood the operating principles (three-time police interrogation protocol of M).

③ Furthermore, the Defendants did not explain all the premises that enable the long-term realization of bitco-related marginal transactions, such as the method of holding local accounts connected to each bitco exchange, the method of realizing the local currency acquired by selling bitco-owner as profits, and the resolution of legal problems that may arise in the course of trading foreign currency.

④ The Defendants explained, on the premise that the transaction of marginal profits from the high price exchange at a low exchange is carried out in real time, on the premise that the transaction of marginal profits from the high price is carried out. However, in the event that points are recovered as bitcos, considering the following terms and conditions, such prompt real-time transaction is deemed impossible in light of the fact that the bitcoin withdrawal was taken from 3 to 30 days.

(iii) Possibility for the Encashment of points

A) The victims from the instant case also stated to the effect that the points in the C Account have been normally accumulated as an investment explanation by the Defendants. However, points can only be recovered and re-invested in a new Cinvestment product prior to the withdrawal as a bitcoin, not in itself have economic value. Accordingly, convictions that are recovered according to the value indicated by points are another important premise of investment.

B) The terms and conditions of C provide that “I shall consent to the encryption value indicated on the site and not reflect the actual value at present in the monetary market. However, I agree that the value indicated on the low-income website is to control the use of the account, site and services,” and there is room for C to arbitrarily determine the value of bitcos applied at the time of recovering points.

C) According to the above terms and conditions, points recovery takes three (3) days short, and 30 (30) days long (the witness I stated that the bitcos were withdrawn after 43 days have passed since the application for points recovery), and if it is possible for C to arbitrarily determine the withdrawal time of bitcos with a significant change in value during the short period, it is difficult to see that points actually indicate a certain value.

D) On the C website, it indicates that 8% of the fee is paid at the time of recovering points and that bitcoin is actually paid. However, given that members’ withdrawal from bitcoin and then change into Korean won, there is a problem that much less than 30,000 points than points. At this time, the witness stander stated that the amount actually entered is 12,40,000 won, which is 30% of the amount actually entered. In fact, the counsel sent W Account points to the account of E Incheon Chapter for the purpose of proving that the number of points recovered is normal, and then, it is difficult to claim that there was a lower rate of 30,000 points collected from X’s account, but it is difficult to claim that there was a lower rate of 30,000 points collected from bitco, other than 134, 2018.

E) However, the Defendants appears to have not given any explanation to investors on such issues as may arise when the points are recovered (limited to 8% of the fees set forth in the name at the time of collecting points). Accordingly, investors believed that bitcos corresponding to points are golded, thereby making an investment in trust and trusting the cashing of the points equivalent thereto.

F) Furthermore, in recent years, there are many cases where the point recovery itself is not carried out, and even the number of cases applied in Defendant B’s account was not performed normally (Evidence No. 48), and the Defendants asserted that this is a matter arising from the failure of members to observe the point recovery procedure, but it is not clear what the procedure is, and there is no circumstance that the Defendants explained to investors. It is difficult to see that the number of points collected by other members solely on the above X’s case of success, and rather, it is a question that C head office is not a prior screening of the point recovery.

4) Sub-committee

As seen earlier, if a profit-making business that C operates is sobold, only the profits paid in the multi-level structure, such as recommendation allowances, bonuses, and allowances, which are paid when members recruited subordinate investors and meet certain conditions, are actually meaningful. Defendant B also stated that the investors reported the long-term support allowance to make an investment, and the Defendants actually invested only in USD 1,00 as a regular member, and the Defendants collected a great quantity of points in the virtue located in the upper part of the multi-level structure by soliciting subordinate investors.

After all, C is a typical multi-level financial fraud that pays profits to existing investors by means of a new bitcoin's investment, and it is judged that C is taking the form of reserving points instead of immediately paying profits, and inducing them to re-investment.

D. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by deception related to E and so-called “individual co-purchase 12” by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendants, as seen earlier, promoted and operated a money exchange system in order to look at the issues of points recovery (loss in time and amount) as seen earlier from the beginning, and to see that points are commercialized as they are, when the investors request cashing of points, refund the profits to senior investors under the name of so-called “personal co-purchase,” and some investors did not purchase bitcos and actually belong to the profits of Defendant B while transmitting points held by Defendant B, and such a method was not possible unless subordinated investment proceeds continue to enter.

(i) the E corporate privateization;

A) Investment funds deposited in the account in the account of the Party E was not managed separately from the money for investors to purchase bitcos for the registration of the Party C members and the revenue of the headquarters E, branch operation expenses, etc. When Defendant B manages the corporate account, it was disbursed without any restriction for various personal expenses, and it was intended for Defendant B to purchase virtual currency irrelevant to bitcoin and withdraw it to another place, and 13) and remitted KRW 984,360,162 over 22 times to the one’s own name Qup account. Moreover, there was no accounting book, and the tax return was also conducted formally.

B) In light of this, E was actually operated as a personal entrepreneur, and eventually, E’s remainder, excluding money used to purchase bitcos, out of the money actually deposited into the corporate account, shall be deemed to have been reverted to the individual.

2) Issues of 'personal coin transaction'

A) The term “personal co-purchase” means that E transfers points to investors from the corporate account by converting points into KRW 1,100 per USD 1,00, and the investors explained that the points are transferred to Defendant B’s account (the Defendants explained to investors that they are “transfer”). On the contrary, it is defined that an investor transfers the investment money to the corporate account and Defendant B transfers the points in his own account to the investor’s C account to the investor’s C (the Defendants do not distinguish between “personal co-purchase” and “sale in a personal co-co-purchase” but both “personal co-purchase” and “sale in a personal co-co-purchase”). However, as seen below, both “personal co-purchase” and “sale in a personal co-co-purchase” are merely a way to refund the investment funds of senior investors, including Defendant B.

① The so-called 'private co-purchase' is not achieved at the time of the occurrence of the demand for the registration of a new investor, but was completed at the time of the request of existing investors for the cashing of proceeds.

② As to the reasons why Defendant B’s account is used in the case of “personal co-purchase” and “sale of personal co-owners, the Defendants are aware that Defendant B is unable to create a corporate name account. However, Article 3 of the C Terms recognizes not only individuals but also corporations as members.

③ When the Defendants make a “private coin purchase”, the financial resources are part of subordinated investment funds accumulated in the account of the E legal entity, so the Defendants are entitled to refund the investment funds to the prior investors of C without additional costs. In addition, Defendant B may directly recover the C points of the investors’ C points transmitted to the account of an individual’s C and obtain profits, and recycle them to the “sale of private coin.” As such, in the end, a significant portion of the investment funds that have been refunded to the prior investors would be recovered. In particular, the points recycled in the “sale of private coin” are to purchase KRW 1,100 per USD 1,40 and sell them to 1,400 per USD 1,00 (in the event of membership of the E-regular member, the investment funds are KRW 1,400,000,000). Thus, the profits will remain.

4) When the Defendants make a “private coin sale”, Defendant B can encash the points additionally held as a result of the “personal coin purchase” as the first investor of the Republic of Korea as the first investor of the Republic of Korea, and the “personal coin purchase” under a more favorable and safe condition than recovering in C. Although the investment money entered the name of E, it is the same as that reverted to the Defendants of the investment money entered in the name of E. However, as seen earlier.

⑤ The Defendants asserted that, as seen earlier, Defendant B transferred KRW 984,360,162 from the corporate account in the name of Defendant B to the Defendant’s account in order to preserve the points that Defendant B sent in the process of “private cocoin sales”. However, there is no fact that Defendant B transferred the money earned from the C Points collected in the process of “purchase in private coin” to the E corporate account.

B) As such, while the “personal co-purchase” and “individual co-sale” are successful, it has the effect of inducing a strong motive for investment to the new subordinate investors in Kuk housing in which the recovery of investment proceeds from senior investors is more stable than the point recovery in C. In addition, in the process, the Defendants may take economic benefits as above (in fact, the DefendantB taken over KRW 3,391,187,430 in Y account plus KRW 984,360,162, and then took over KRW 3,391,187,430 in Y account from February 2, 2017 to October 10, 2017, and consumed KRW 3,792,00,000 over 52 times in total from February 2 to October 2017).

C) For this reason, the Defendants: (a) with well aware of the fact that “personal co-purchase” does not mean to recover the normal amount of investment permitted in C (the CArticles of Incorporation prohibit transactions in the accounts) and seem to have actively encouraged investors to “personal co-purchase” and “money exchange” in the early stage; (b) in fact, “working white paper.ptx14” in relation to money exchange affairs, the Defendants also stated the business policy that “all affairs related to money exchange shall be carried out by a person in charge of electronic data processing at each location and apply en bloc to the head of the electronic computer office; and (c) most investors recover the amount of investment only “money exchange” without knowledge about money recovery points at the early stage.

E. In the instant case, a large number of investors specified as a victim in the instant case stated that there was no loss from return of the investment amount or rather benefit was considered. However, it would be a general phenomenon that senior investors recover the investment amount from the multi-stage fraud before the collapse of the multi-stage fraud structure by making it difficult to refund the senior investment amount to junior investors. Accordingly, such circumstance does not affect the establishment of fraud.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, even if the Defendants did not guarantee the recovery of the investment money, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants deceiving the victims and received the investment money as stated in the facts constituting a crime. Therefore, the Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 15 years;

2. The scope of recommending sentencing criteria: The names of the Defendants.

(a) Basic crimes: Each fraud;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 5 (at least 30 billion won)

[Specially Convicted Persons] Reduction element: In a case where the victim is fully responsible for the occurrence of the crime or the expansion of damage, the victim is not subject to punishment, or damage due to considerable part of the damage.

(15) in the case of recovery

○ Aggravations: Where a person led or led to the commission of fraud, and commits a crime against unspecified or large number of victims or repeatedly over a considerable period of time.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 4 years 16) - 13 years (Basic Area)

(b) Scope of final recommended punishment based on standards for handling multiple crimes: 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor - 15 years (the minimum limit of the recommended sentence shall be set according to the minimum limit of the recommended sentence, as it is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between a crime of violating the Door-to-Door Sales,

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for 4 years;

(b) Defendant B: Imprisonment for 7 years;

○ 불리한 정상 : 피고인들은 사기범행을 목적으로 E를 설립하고 전국적인 지점망을 구축하여 대규모의 다단계 사기범행을 저질렀고, 약 1년 10개월에 걸쳐 불특정, 다수의 피해자들을 대상으로 총 872억 원이 넘는 돈을 편취하였다. 외국에 본사가 있고, 당시까지만 해도 널리 알려지지 않았던 비트코인에 투자한다고 설명하는 등 피해자들이 쉽게 사기범행을 눈치챌 수 없게 만들었다. 이 사건 범행을 주도적으로 계획하고, 그 실행을 지휘하였다. 피고인 B는 동종 범죄로 집행유예 1회, 실형 1회(징역 2년 6월) 처벌받은 전력이 있다. 피고인 A도 동종 범죄로 징역 10월에 집행유예 2년을 선고받고 항소한 상태이다(서울중앙지방법원 2017고단8505).

The most favorable circumstances for ○: a considerable number of victims recovered the investment money. The victims came to go beyond the Defendants due to a bad desire to obtain high profits in the short term. Defendant A has no record of criminal punishment and criminal punishment for the same kind of crime, and there is no relative degree of participation or profit in comparison with Defendant B.

○ Other factors of sentencing as ordered shall be comprehensively considered, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. and all the factors of sentencing as shown in the oral proceedings.

Division of Non-Offense: Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the Defendants

1. Summary of the facts charged

In collusion, the Defendants received 810,600,000 won from the victim G around September 27, 2016 from the victim G to explain the investment in the same manner as the stated in Paragraph 1 of the ruling, and acquired it as the investment money for C online goods.

2. Defendants’ assertion

The sum of KRW 373,800,000 and KRW 415,800,000,000, which have been remitted from the victim G to E account in his own name, is the victim H’s investment amount to KRW 373,80,000. Therefore, the victim G is not subject to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim G, and each crime of fraud is established against the victim G and H.

3. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, victim G and H are judged to be subject to deception from the Defendants and to have been obtained by deception from the Defendants.

① Ultimately, the issue of who made an investment is determined by C Account, and the three accounts are different from the three English names of the victim G (Z, AA, AB, AC, AD) and the victim H (ID: AE, AF, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, and AK.

② While the G account is a subordinate account of AE which is one of H accounts, points are managed by each of the above accounts.

③ From this Court, on September 26, 2016, the victim H explained about the mixed-child C’s business in Seoul, and on the following day, Cheongju stated that the business explanation together with the victim G was determined by the following:

4. The victim G stated in this Court that the victims borrowed money from AL to raise their investments, and that they bear interest together with the victim H.

Conclusion

Therefore, separate frauds is established against victim G and H, and each fraud amount is KRW 373,80,00,00, KRW 415,800,00, and it does not correspond to Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (the amount of profit is more than KRW 500,000, but less than KRW 5 billion). Thus, this part of the facts charged should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the absence of proof of criminal facts. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of each fraud against victim G and H, which is a reduction of facts included in the above facts charged, it shall not be sentenced separately to

The presiding judge, the Full Judge Line

Judges Kang Jin-han

Judges Do Residents-ho

1) As seen below, the Defendants’ assertion is accepted and the facts charged are found to have been reduced.

2) However, the investment amount of No. 1637 per annum is 373,80,000 (G), 415,800,000 (H) and the investor is 'G and H.

3) No. 73

4) No. 76

5) No. 179

6) No. 180

7) The term “cryptourcy” means a digital asset designed to function as a means of exchange, namely, the method of encryption.

It means securing the safety of transactions, controlling the creation of additional units, and certifying the transfer of assets.

'Virtual currency' is also called 'Virtual currency, but there is no different difference from virtual currency in that there is no developer who issues the currency;

The following shall be read as the "cryption currency":

8) Although the Defendants are 'coin' the proceeds indicated on the C site, the proceeds as follows are recovered as follows:

(pathoutout) No person in itself is the bitcoin, and there is no confusion as stated in the facts charged in order to avoid confusion.

T't means ‘T'.

9) 300 times in the documents (part of No. 9 seized evidence 1,000 US$ 1,300,000) x 15 months

daily allowances are paid only on the business day, so it is 420 days including Saturdays and Sundays (= X7/5 on 300) another public holiday.

B. It seems that the daily allowance is added to the day without being paid daily allowances due to the occurrence of profits.

(x) transactions that make profits using price differences in two or more different markets.

11) It is possible to identify the purchase or sale of a computer program by analyzing the price, trends, volume of transactions, etc. of assets using the computer.

transactions conducted.

12) As seen below, ‘personal coin purchase', ‘sale of personal coin', ‘sale of personal coin', and ‘sale of personal coin'. Here, the subject of the actual transaction

This is not bitcos but C Points. However, this term has been continuously used in the trial process.

In light of this, it is necessary to use it as it is.

13) According to EY Yg initial screen (Investigation Records 2122, 2123) the EY account 445.4610470, Litcoin

51.5764735, Earsium Cregrative 4809.73789240 was withdrawn.

14) Part of the compressed files that were seized at Defendant A’s office and that were compressedd in the outer hump No. 3

15) Many victims submitted a written application to the effect that a considerable number of victims did not recover their investments and suffered losses.

16) 1/2 of the lower limit of the scope of sentence (8 years) shall be mitigated, since the type of the most severe crime is higher than that of the single crime as a result of addition.