A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Punishment of the crime

[2017 Highest 9086] The Defendant was engaged in the business of providing stocks investment consultation, advice, etc. free of charge against an unspecified person from around 2013 to around August 2017 through a reading room, etc. of the C organization to a police officer.

1. Fraud against the victim B;

A. On May 2016, at a place where it is difficult to know the police officer's location, the Defendant calls to the victim B for a “five million won already invested” and there is a limit so far as the amount is too little.

B. 50,000,000 won shall be more invested to B.

이제 곧 ’ 썸 머 랠리‘ summer rally, 매년 6-7 월경에 주가가 크게 상승하는 것을 지칭 가 온다.

It is too close to the rise and the opportunity to put this opportunity.

If the inside of Korea makes an investment of KRW 50 million, not only fraud but also investment of KRW 50 million, the principal will be more than the principal.

The loan certificate that guarantees the principal was also drawn up.

However, from early 2015, the Defendant received investment money from those who came to know through C’s organization or reading room, and received securities accounts with which the investment money, etc. was deposited as collateral up to 2-3 times the principal amount as collateral, and invested in stocks with a stock connection loan that provides securities account or deposit deposit money to securities company customers as collateral, but most losses were incurred due to the decline in stock price, etc. However, even if the Defendant received money from the damaged party as stock investment for the purpose of stock investment in a situation where there was no certain amount of income, even if the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to use the full amount of money that was thought to be paid as losses to the existing investors or used as Defendant’s living expenses, etc., for the victim.

In addition, it was impossible to guarantee the principal to the victim even if one defendant was using money from the lending company for living expenses, etc., and has failed to make an investment because there is no other property.