2015 Highis1240, 2016 Highis296, 2016 Highis343(combined)

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

Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission

2016 early 174,356,48,900 (Joint) Application for a remedy order

A

New Assistance 2, concession winnings, Kim Jong-Un (each indictment), and Ssung (public trial)

Law Firm B

Attorney C, D

1. E.

2. F;

3. G.

4. H;

February 7, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

All of the applications for compensation of this case are dismissed.

Criminal History Office

[2015Gohap1240]

1. Fraud against victim I;

Around January 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the J Office located in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si, the Defendant: (b) stated that “If the Defendant borrowed money from the victim but did not have the intent or ability to repay it within the agreed period, he would pay 10% interest per month; and (c) received KRW 30 million from the victim as loan money; and (d) thereafter, the Defendant, in collusion with K, either solely or jointly with K to lend money from November 12, 2013, received KRW 330,000 won in total from the victim eight times in total, as shown in the List of Crimes (1) by deceiving him/her.

2. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against victims L;

Around May 10, 2013, the Defendant, even if having borrowed money from the victim L in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, did not have the intent or ability to repay the money within the agreed time period, provided that “the victim shall use only 2 to 30,000,000 won per month, and shall be paid 5 additional interest per month,” and that the Defendant received KRW 100,000 from the victim as the borrowed money from the victim. From that time to January 10, 2014, the Defendant received KRW 7,40,000 from the victim 28 times in total as shown in the attached crime list (2).

[2016Gohap296]

Around June 3, 2014, the Defendant, when operating N, agreed to invest an amount equivalent to KRW 50 million from P in relation to the right to supply goods at duty-free shops in China, which the said company intends to proceed, and pay part of the profits accrued from the said business.

Around June 2014, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, at the office of the company located in the 11st floor of Q building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, the Defendant would be able to receive money from the victim because of the death of the victim. The Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, as the operating expenses of the party headquarters are insufficient, the Defendant would have repaid without money.

However, the above company's business was almost no profit-making since there was no profit-making. At the time, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to make timely repayment even if he borrowed money from the victim because he was liable for the debt of 1.7 billion won or more to other creditors.

Nevertheless, as such, the Defendant, as if he had led to profits from the business carried out by the above company, by deceiving the victim, and then transferred KRW 20 million from the victim to the new bank account in the name of the Defendant, around June 18, 2014, and then, received the money from the victim through the new bank account in the name of the Defendant from August 22, 2014. From that time, the Defendant, as described in the separate crime list (3) from August 22, 2014, remitted the money with a total of KRW 145 million as borrowed money.

[2016Gohap343]

1. Fraud;

On December 2, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim G, stating that the Defendant would pay dividends from 20% to 30% for three months in proportion to the amount invested, and return the principal for three months after the date of the investment.

However, there is no fact that the defendant entered into a contract with the UK online gambling site S, and even if he received the investment from the victim, he did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and dividends.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim and receiving KRW 284,050,00 from the victim around that time, in collusion with K alone or with K, received a total of KRW 783,550,000 from December 2, 2012 to November 2013, as shown in the list of crimes (4) in attached Form 17.

Accordingly, the defendant, alone or in collusion with K, received the property by deceiving each victim.

2. Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission;

No person shall engage in a business of raising funds from many unspecified persons without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under Acts and subordinate statutes.

Nevertheless, the Defendant agreed to pay the total amount of investment or an amount exceeding it in the future without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under the above provisions, and received investment amounting to KRW 284,050,00 from G around that time, in collusion with K by himself/herself or in collusion with K from December 2, 2012 to November 201, the Defendant received KRW 636,550,000 in total from 13 persons, such as the list of crimes (5) in attached Table (hereinafter “the list of crimes”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness I, L, T (part), U, E, F, P, V (part), W, X, and Y (part);

1. Each legal statement of a witness Z, G, and Y in each protocol of trial on the date set for the first, second, and third instances of the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Godan4305 case;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including the case, No. 2015 high-level 1240 case, No. 2, I, and L);

1. The prosecutor's statement concerning G;

1. Each police statement on the I, L, P, Z, V (part), AA,Y, H, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, X, G, E, and F;

1. A written confirmation of facts and an application for carbon;

1. Each complaint, loan certificate, equity share contract, account transaction details, financial transaction details, individual entry or departure status;

1. The summary information of the case against K, the assertion and judgment of the defendant of the judgment and his defense counsel

1. [Attachment 2015 Gohap1240] Related to the case

A. Paragraph 1 of the judgment (as to the victim ID)

1) Summary of the argument

The Defendant, rather than borrowing money from the victim, was invested in businesses such as online gambling sites and private games, which most of which the Defendant is driving, but did not pay investment profits by business failure, and did not deceiving the victim, thereby deceiving the victim. In addition, the amount stated in paragraph (8) of the Criminal List (1) is given to K who operates a corporation AH as an investment, and the Defendant is not defrauded.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence stated in the judgment of the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant had taken money by deceiving the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime. This is based on the following circumstances:

A) The victim received the introduction of the defendant from T to T to the investigation agency of this Court that "a person who has a high interest on the loan of money from a person who was known to the defendant," and stated that the defendant started to lend money from the defendant's divided office, and consistently asserts that the nature of money paid to the defendant is "the borrowed money".

B) Around January 23, 2013, the victim first paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant, the Defendant borrowed the above amount and prepared a certificate of borrowing that the maturity shall be 2.2 and 23. (However, the other party was written in the name of AI that the victim lent money). The Defendant received KRW 90 million around February 22, 2013, when the Defendant received KRW 90 million from the victim around May 14, 2013, and when receiving KRW 90 million from the victim around May 14, 2013, the Defendant prepared and issued a specific certificate of borrowing to the victim one month after the maturity.

C) On January 23, 2013, the Defendant received KRW 30 million from the victim, and paid KRW 30 million to the victim respectively on February 6, 2013, and KRW 20,3 million on February 2013. After receiving additional KRW 90 million from the victim on February 22, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 12 million on March 4, 2013 and KRW 12 million on March 14, 2013. Each of the above amounts appears to have been paid by the victim by multiplying the amount paid to the Defendant by a certain ratio, and by interest on the said borrowed amount (the above amount is more than KRW 10% on a monthly statement that the victim stated to be the Defendant, but it seems to have been paid periodically on a certain frame).

D) Since the Defendant received money from the victim from January 2013 to November 201, 2013, without any particular property or income, the Defendant was in the state of receiving money from the victim through the business in order to return the principal to the victim. However, as seen earlier, it is deemed that the Defendant did not have any substance or feasibility, or that there was no business that could reduce the amount of investment and earnings to the victims by accomplishing stable profits.

E) The Defendant asserts that the victim had detailed explanations about the Defendant’s gambling site business, Mara Casino business, Jeju-do private horse racing business, etc., but invested money. However, the core of the instant deception was that, if the victim borrowed money, he would pay interest on the loan, or would have paid the loan in advance, if he borrowed money in addition to the money within the agreed time limit, he would have paid the money. The victim would have drawn up a certificate of borrowing the money first received the Defendant, as well as the first receipt of the loan from the Defendant on August 7, 2013. Since the agreement was drawn up between the Defendant and the victim on the share investment contract as of August 7, 2013, this appears to have been made late to close this after the Defendant had already been paid a considerable amount of money. However, even if the victim had not been willing to visit the casino or Jeju-do private horse racing business with the Defendant, the victim could not have been aware of the Defendant’s actual ability to pay the money to the Defendant before and after the time of the visit and the payment of the money to the Defendant.

F) The victim became aware of K in charge of the distribution business of the AJ operated by the Defendant through the Defendant, and the Defendant directly explained to the purport that the money invested in K or AH is used by the Defendant, and thus, he should not be aware of it. Upon the K’s request, the Defendant also explained the AJ’s distribution business and partially recognized that he/she was engaged in the business as if he/she was directly engaged in. Thus, even if the victim deposited the money into the account under the name of K, it shall be deemed that the Defendant conspired with K and acquired it by fraud.

B. As to Paragraph 2 (victim L)

1) Summary of the argument

Although the Defendant borrowed a part of the money from the victim, he fully repaid the money (No. 1-3) (the crime sight list (2)), there was no receipt of part of the money (the crime sight list (2) No. 18-20, 23, and 24). The remainder of the money is invested in order to jointly carry out the public trade projects of AJ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "AJ") with the victim, and it cannot be said that the Defendant acquired it by deception.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence in the judgment, the crime of defraudation, such as the facts constituting the crime, is recognized. This is based on the following circumstances:

A) The Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the victim on May 10, 2013, and KRW 20 million on June 3, 2013, and June 10, 2013, respectively, with respect to each of the money listed in the crime sight table (2) Nos. 1 through 3. The victim stated that he/she would receive 5% interest for KRW 100 million from this court, and that he/she would receive 20 million after receiving 5% interest for KRW 100 million from this court. The victim stated that he/she would receive 20 million from 2 to 3 months, and that he/she would receive 10 million after receiving 20 million interest without having agreed to do so.

The Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the victim on May 10, 2013, KRW 31 million on June 10, 2013, and KRW 5 million on July 9, 2013. Accordingly, around June 10, 2013, KRW 26 million was appropriated for the principal of the borrowed amount as of June 3, 2013 and June 10, 2013. The remainder was paid as interest for the borrowed amount as of May 10, 2013. Ultimately, the Defendant did not pay the victim the entire principal of the borrowed amount as of May 10, 2013 and the principal of the borrowed amount as of June 3, 2013 and June 10, 2013.

The Defendant asserts that all of the above loans were paid to the victim from July 31, 2013 to April 9, 2015. However, the victim continued to pay the funds to the Defendant from July 2013, 2013, which exceeds the amount that the Defendant paid to the victim. Even in the case of the Defendant’s assertion, the part of the principal of the loans as of May 10, 2013, as of June 10, 2013, appears to have been repaid exceeding the original agreed maturity period, and the Defendant was extremely difficult in economic situation around May 31, 2013 and June 10, 2013. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, even though having no intent or ability to pay interest on each of the above loans from the time of borrowing money, could have sufficiently predicted the fact that the payment cannot be made properly with the maturity date, by deceiving the victim of the above loans, even though there was no intent or ability to pay the funds within the agreed date.

B) With respect to each money listed in the list of crimes (2) Nos. 18 through 20, 23, and 24, the victim stated in the investigative agency and this court that he delivered each of the above money to the defendant in cash at the office of the defendant or his residence together with U at each of the above dates. U stated in this court that the victim, who had cash in this court, was placed in the way in the defendant's office No. 2-3, 2013 and that the victim visited the defendant's office. In this case, the victim stated that he visited the defendant's office by citing the bank with cash.

From the new bank account under the victim's name (Account Number AK (hereinafter referred to as "AK account") and AL (hereinafter referred to as "AL account"), the sum of KRW 2.3 million and KRW 2.6 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 2.6 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 2.3 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 2.1 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 2.3 million and KRW 9 million and KRW 2.1 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 2.3 million and KRW 9 million and KRW 3 million and KRW 2.3 million and KRW 9 million, respectively, until October 19, 2013, respectively.

As above, it seems that the victim is relatively detailed about the background leading up to the payment of each damage amount by taking account of the fact that each damage amount or the cash equivalent thereto was confirmed at the victim’s account around each time when the victim makes a statement, and that the victim paid KRW 30 million around October 10, 2013 to meet KRW 100 million, and around October 19, 2013, around 70 million, it appears that the victim is memory in detail. The defendant paid part of the amount in cash to the victim (refer to KRW 15 million on October 19, 2013, KRW 75 million on October 29, 2013, and KRW 83 on the evidence record) and the victim stated that it was again paid money to the defendant on each of the above dates. In full view of the fact that the victim made a statement that each of the above facts was acquired by deception by the victim.

C) As to each other

(1) The victim was introduced to the Defendant through AMF, which had been attending the school around August 2012. The victim heard the opinion that 5% interest was given to the Defendant from AMF to May 10, 2013, and leased KRW 100 million for the first time to the Defendant around May 10, 2013. The victim consistently asserts that the nature of money paid to the Defendant from May 10, 2013 to January 10, 2014 is the lending money. The Defendant also recognized that the money paid to the victim on May 10, 2013, around June 3, 2013, and June 10, 2013, was borrowed money. At that time, U.S. loaned money to the Defendant’s business around June 2013, 2013.

(2) The victim did not prepare a loan certificate or receipt, etc. with the Defendant while paying money to the Defendant. However, in light of the relationship between the victim and the Defendant (the victim was in conflict with AMF, as well as with the Defendant’s ship owner, and maintained a friendly relationship with the Defendant and the U.S.), it appears that it was difficult for the victim to request the Defendant to prepare a loan certificate. The mere fact that the loan certificate was not prepared does not mean that the nature of the above money is both investment money or that it does not constitute deception by deception.

(3) On May 10, 2013, the Defendant paid interest on the borrowed money to the victim three occasions on three occasions, and around June 19, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the victim on the same day as the victim received KRW 100 million from the victim. This also appears to have been paid as interest on the borrowed money. The victim stated in this court that the Defendant paid KRW 10 million in cash to the said KRW 100 million as interest and divided it with U.S. In U.S., the victim stated that the Defendant paid KRW 10 million as interest on the borrowed money.

(4) The victim stated from July 24, 2013 to August 6, 2013 that 10% of the monthly interest rate was to be paid to the defendant and that 10% of the monthly interest rate was to be given to the defendant. However, a certain amount of money is not paid as interest rate. However, around June 19, 2013 and July 24, 2013, the victim loaned money to the defendant was not at regular intervals, and the victim was able to receive 29 million won from the defendant on July 18, 2013, and the victim continued to pay the money to the defendant at regular intervals from July 18, 2013. In full view of the preceding and following circumstances, the money that the victim paid to the defendant by August 6, 2013 also appears to have been borrowed.

(5) From July 2013, the Defendant asserted that the victim voluntarily invested in the AJ since he/she operated the AJ with the victim and operated the AJ. Since then, the victim claimed that he/she voluntarily invested in the AJ. The victim began to have interest in the AJ projects from August 2013, and the Defendant and the Chinese-related parties of the AJ, such as the Chairperson, NN Chairperson, were only known to the Chinese-related parties. ② The victim directly paid 70 million won to the lessor when concluding the AJ office lease agreement with the victim under the name of the victim A0 on December 6, 2013, when the victim entered into the AJ office lease agreement with the victim, and paid 30 million won to purchase the office fixtures. ③ The victim was in charge of accounting and tax affairs as the financial director of the AJ from around December 2013, the victim received benefits from the said company, and the victim took part in the AJ's operation as the above AJ audit.

However, if the victim invested in the business as a partner, it is not necessary to receive the refund prior to the occurrence of the profit accrued from the business. The defendant continued to pay the victim the amount of 50,000 to 30 million won over several occasions from October 16, 2013 to April 9, 2015, which is prior to the commencement of AJ regularly. Such money paid is not the investment profit but the principal or interest of the loan (AJ projects are in the process of preparation). In light of the fact that the AP Group was in the process of preparation, it did not take profits from the suspension of the business in the process of selecting the business, and the defendant continued to use the Chinese duty-free shop project as N around June 2014, the defendant continued to use the loan business as the trade name of N, but the defendant continued to use the loan business in the name of the Chinese government, and the victim did not have any profits from the NA or the NAJ's shares in the name of the defendant's corporation until it opened the duty-free shop in May 2015.

(6) The Defendant asserts that, at the time of receiving each amount from the victim, the prospect of the Chinese duty-free shop business conducted by AJ (B) at the time of receiving each amount, the Defendant was able to pay such amount to the victim through the said business. However, it appears that the Chinese government or partner was a highly dangerous business that is likely to change the schedule, etc. according to the position of the cooperation company, and the Defendant had no particular property or income at the time, and rather, the Defendant was liable to pay a considerable amount of borrowed money and to return invested money to the victims, I, and the majority of the combined cases. Ultimately, even though the Defendant did not have the ability to repay in reality, it is determined that the Defendant acquired each amount from the victim by deceiving the victim as if he were to be repaid together with the previous borrowed money, by deceiving the victim

2. [Attachment 2016 Highis296] Related to the case

A. The assertion

Since the victim (P) well aware that the defendant's business fund situation is difficult, he/she lends money without fixing the due date for payment under the N's operational fund even though he/she is unable to do so, he/she is not deceiving the victim or deceiving it

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence in the judgment, it is determined that the defendant deceivings the victim as stated in the facts of the crime and has the intention to commit the crime. This is based on the following circumstances in particular:

1) From the investigative agency to this court, the victim stated that "the defendant must contact the defendant to make an investment in N operated by the defendant in China to get an investment," and that "I would have to pay the money in this case after making an investment," and that "I would have to pay the money in this case," and consistently stated that the defendant's deception, payment period of the above money, etc. are consistent. The victim paid to the defendant KRW 20 million around June 16, 2014, and KRW 75 million around July 17, 2014. The victim stated that the payment period of the money in this case should be 30 days from the date of the next rent, and if the principal and interest are paid late July 17, 2014, 10% interest should be paid.

2) From March 2014, the Defendant continued to conduct the distribution business exporting goods to China’s duty-free shops, etc., while operating N. From around November 2014, the Defendant continued to open a temporary opening of the duty-free shop (tax-free experience center) in China on or around May 2015, but did not open a regular opening up until now. around June 8, 2014, when the instant money was paid, the Defendant had no particular property registered in his/her own name and had no actual business operation or profit since the Defendant’s N-free shop opened the N-free shop (N-free shop). Moreover, it appears that the Defendant had not been able to receive investment from the outside within the short period of time and resolve the shortage of funds and repay the instant money to the victim.

3) The Defendant asserts that the Defendant loaned the Defendant’s business without having set the due date for repayment because the Defendant invested the amount corresponding to N, and that the Defendant received benefits from N, and that the Defendant used the same as the Defendant’s business. However, all of the Defendant and the victim recognized that the instant money was paid as the loan separately from the investment money, and the victim lent the instant money to the Defendant with the money borrowed from another person, and there seems to be no evidence to deem the Defendant as the direct party to whom the business was given by N (a person who gains benefits from the actual business) (a person who gains benefits through the actual business). On July 17, 2014, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing the money with the due date for repayment, and the Defendant did not continue to repay the money to the victim even after having failed to do so even after having failed to do so, it appears that the Defendant did not perform the said obligation separately from the written confirmation of the intent to repay the money by up to April 10, 2015.

3. [Attachment 2016 Gohap343] Related to the case

A. Summary of the argument

The defendant did not borrow money from the victims, but did not actually proceed with each business to receive investment, but did not return money to the wind failure, and did not deceiving the victims to acquire money.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by this court, it can be recognized that the victims were deceiving the victims as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment of the defendant, which is based on the following circumstances:

(i) a equity investment project for the Chinese 'AS' company related to the gambling site;

A) The Defendant came to know, through the introduction of ATS, a company of 'AS' in China, which operates a website using the sports gambling system that is a joint corporation in a foreign country. Around September 2012, the Defendant concluded an investment contract with the said company and 2 billion won (one billion won each over two occasions) to invest within 3 months from the said company and 3 months, and to receive 20 percent equity (one billion won each over two times). Around September 2012, the Defendant provided the victims with a sufficient explanation of the specific contents of the company and the risk of investment, and received the investment money, and that the investors in the profit structure of the said company were able to receive the principal and profits sufficiently.

B) However, in China’s Cheongdo, whether AS company actually exists in China’s Cheongdo, whether AS company constantly raises profits through the operation of a sports gambling site, and there is no objective material to know whether the Defendant actually entered into an investment contract with AS company. Although ATS made a statement consistent with the Defendant’s assertion in this court, it is difficult to readily believe the above statement in light of the occupation of ATS or the relationship with the Defendant. Some of the victims visited the building alleged as AS company in China’s Cheongdo, and the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant displayed the profit structure of AS company by accessing AS company’s Internet manager’s website. However, there is no objective material, it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that it was fabricated as such, rather than the Defendant’s actual profit creation, it could have been generally explained or sought for the concept of business regardless of the Defendant’s actual profit creation.

C) Even if a company AS company was in existence and the Defendant concluded an investment contract with AS company as above, the Defendant did not have any special property other than the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million on September 2012, and the Defendant was not able to invest KRW 2 billion within 3 months, which is the due date (the Defendant did not prepare for KRW 2 billion within 3 months). Even based on the Defendant’s statement, even based on the Defendant and AT’s statement, the said investment contract is valid to make an investment of KRW 2 billion, and if so, the said investment contract is to be confiscated, and there was a very little possibility that the said investment would be made under the said investment contract, and there was a higher possibility that only the investment amount would be confiscated.

D) Although the victims received explanation from the Defendant on the content of the investment in AS company, they did not know about the specific contents of the investment contract (in particular, the part where the investment amount was confiscated unless all of the two billion won is invested). Rather, according to the victims’ statements, the Defendant promised to guarantee the principal even if the business failed.

E) Of the funds that the Defendant received from the victims, most of the funds received as a equity investment business for the Chinese AS company was used as office operating expenses, dividends or investments to other investors, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant did not properly invest in the AS company (this Defendant also acknowledges the Defendant). Although the Defendant asserted that the Z was investing in the fund-raising business without his/her consent and caused the above situation, the Defendant is the Defendant, the Defendant was the person who instructed the victims of the business, and the Defendant transferred the funds to the account he/she directly received from the victims or used by the Defendant (U,U, etc. closely related to the Defendant) (U, etc.), the loan certificate or investment shares contract issued to the victims was also made in the name of the Defendant, and the interest or dividends paid to the victims are also transferred in the name of the Defendant. In full view of the fact that it appears that the victims were the victims by promising to guarantee the victims and the parties who received the funds from the victims are not the Defendant.

(ii) Macar Game in Makao Casinos;

A) The Defendant asserts that, in order to raise the profits to be paid to investors and the investment funds to AS companies, the Defendant carried out the Baa Game using a special formula that guarantees 4-5% of profits, instead of absolutely losing money, and that some victims directly carried out the Baa Game and paid the investment funds to the Defendant.

B) However, the Defendant’s assertion that a certain return on profit may be made in accordance with a special formula is difficult in itself, because the result is a kind of gambling, and the result depends on the chance of gambling. As claimed by the Defendant, if two persons stand money in accordance with the official formula, the possibility of loss of money through the diversification of risk may be reduced, but it seems difficult to expect a stable return on profit exceeding this.

C) The victim W, who actually visited Macaro and recognized the form of the Defendant’s play, has consistently stated that the investigative agency and this court only received a little amount of money as a revenue, and that there was no fact of returning the principal. The Defendant, who prepared and delivered the loan certificate for investment to W, did not receive the return (W submitted the above loan certificate to the investigative agency upon filing a complaint by the Defendant) and did not receive the return (W submitted the above loan certificate to the investigative agency). However, it seems that W did not return the principal of investment money to W.

D) Although the Defendant received investment money from the victims and made some profits, it is recognized that there was no money in fact that there was no money remaining since the victims visited Makao because they paid the travel expenses and earnings of the victims who visited Makao. Therefore, it seems that it was impossible from the beginning to prepare an investment money or pay a stable profit through the Maka Game, and the said Maka Casino casino visit was the process of self-defense.

(iii) investment in Jeju-do private horse business operators;

A) The Defendant asserts that the victims received money from the victims and invested in the Jeju-do private horse transportation business entity in order to raise the earnings and investment funds for the AS company, and the victims knew of the investment and continued to receive the money, but the victims did not recover the money at the last time.

B) However, in the investigative agency and the court before the renewal of the pleading, the victim G stated that the Defendant paid money by stating that the Defendant would have obtained 40-50% profit from the investment amount if he/she invested in the Jeju-do private horse business operator. The investment in the private horse business operator may be less than the direct participation in the private horse, but it is also dependent on the friendly nature such as the dividend rate, so it seems difficult to contain the said degree of stable high-income. In fact, the Defendant was paid the investment amount from G, etc. under the pretext of the private horse business, but the amount less than the investment principal was returned even if he/she fully satisfies the amount paid as a profit.

C) Around June 2013, the victim G had already paid the relevant investment money to the Defendant as the investment money for the AS company, and had not been refunded the money exceeding KRW 100 million. However, if the Defendant had sufficiently explained the risk of investment to the private light horse business operator, it would have not been deemed that such investment was made.

4) AJ-related projects (K)

A) The Defendant asserts that, in relation to the AJ business, K was given a logistics business license, K was paid investment money from the victims during the process of establishing K and establishing AH, and that it was not a fact that it was given investment money by deceiving the victims.

The victims of this portion deposited the investment money into the account in the name of K or AH, and received the investment contract, etc. from K.

B) However, this part of the victims, upon being directly aware of the Defendant, or (G) and through the branch, became aware of K after being introduced the Defendant, and then came to know K (X), and the victims, when they want to make an investment in an investigative agency while explaining the overall business, stated that they deposited the Defendant into the account in the name of K or AH, K or AH, and stated to the same effect in the testimony in the court.

C) Upon K’s request, the Defendant also recognized part of the fact that he provided explanation of the AJ’s logistics business and that he was engaged in the business as if he was directly engaged in. K was convicted of the crime that he conspireded with the Defendant and acquired money from X. According to the final and conclusive judgment, the Defendant appears to have participated in the process of deceiving victims and divided the investment money acquired by the victims into K.

5. Saemangeum Project;

The defendant has not received investment money from the victims under the name of the Saemangeum Project.

The victims asserted that this part of the victims made a common statement to the effect that they would have invested money in the Saemangeum Project by the investigative agency, that they would have invested money in the Saemangeum Project, that they would have been in charge of the Project, that they would have an office of their own, and that they would have been able to participate in the Saemangeum Project, and that they would have been able to participate in the Saemangeum Project. The victims YA, who have agreed with the defendant, stated that the defendant would raise profits by selling earth and sand coming from the Saemangeum Project, that they have legal entities related to the Saemangeum Project, and that they would also raise funds for the Saemangeum Project. This part of the victims stated that they would have been able to raise funds for the Saemangeum Project. The defendant also mentioned the victims of the Saemangeum Project.

6) Self-evaluation fees;

The defendant asserts that he received money from the victim Y as the victim's own appraisal fee and used part of it for the actual intentional appraisal and repaid all of it. However, in light of the fact that the victim stated at an investigative agency that the defendant borrowed money as if it is necessary to conduct an appraisal for the sale of the high-priced self-evaluation, there is no objective data as to whether the defendant actually received an intentional self-evaluation, and that there is no objective data about the defendant's failure to prepare an investment fund for the AS company on April 2013, the defendant was in a very economic difficult situation, and that the above victim is expected to have paid the above money after the lapse of a considerable time after filing a complaint against the defendant and paying the money, it can be recognized that the defendant obtained the money from the victim by deceiving the victim as if he would immediately repay the money.

7) Other circumstances

Since the Defendant received each amount from the victims from December 2, 2012 to November 201, 2013, there was no particular property or income from the victims, in order to return each amount of money to the victims, the Defendant was in a state of receiving profits through each business in order to return the principal. However, it appears that the individual business did not have any substance or feasibility as seen above, or that it was not a business that could reduce investments and earnings to the victims by accomplishing stable profits.

According to the records of account transactions by the Defendant, etc., it appears that the amount received from the victims is mainly consumed in office operating expenses, dividends or investment funds to other investors, or living expenses such as the Defendant and U.S., and there is no data that the Defendant has properly invested in each business.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's arguments are without merit.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 3(1)2 of the former Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Amended by Act No. 13719, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 347(1) and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act ( comprehensively including frauds against the victim L), Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (only one frauds against each victim of money); each victim; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 6(1), 3, 2 subparag. 1, and 30 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar-Raising of Money; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 6(1), 6(1), 3, 2 subparag. 1, and 30 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be the severe penalty for concurrent crimes prescribed by the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order;

Articles 32(1)3 and 25(3)3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the scope of liability for damages is unclear, and it is judged that it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the criminal procedure of this case).

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences by law: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] A systematic fraud, which is not less than five hundred million won, and less than five billion won (Type 3)

[Special Sentencing] Where the victim also has a considerable responsibility for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage (requirements for mitigation), or where the victim has committed a crime against an unspecified or many unspecified victims or has committed a crime repeatedly over a considerable period of time (Aggravated factor).

[Scope of Recommendation] Four to Seven years of imprisonment (Basic Area)

3. Determination of sentence: Four years of imprisonment; and

[In light of the method and period of crime, frequency, number of victims, and the scale and degree of damage, etc., the crime of this case is heavy in light of the method of crime, crime period, the number of victims, and the degree of damage. The defendant led the crime of this case, and has not been able to recover damage to the victims until now. Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether the defendant shows the attitude to deny and justify most of the crime.

In addition to the fact that the defendant was punished by a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, there are many criminal offenses such as violence, obstruction of performance of official duties, smuggling Control Act, false entry in a passport, obstruction of business, etc.

[Lied circumstances] AV, Z, W, AE, Y, H, AD, and AC are difficult to pay part of the amount received by the Defendant to the victims in the form of interest, profit, dividend, etc., and the actual amount of damage seems to be less than the amount obtained by fraud in the judgment. The victims of the instant crime are also responsible for the occurrence and expansion of damage by lending or investing without careful attention. In addition, the Defendant does not want to be punished against the said victims under an agreement with the victim AV, Z, W, AA, Y, Y, H, AD, and AC. The Defendant has no record of punishment for the same crime except for the fine for the crime of violating

In addition, the motive, means and result of the instant crime, the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, etc. of the Defendant, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the instant argument, shall be determined as ordered by comprehensively taking into account.

Part of Innocence [The part of the charge in the case of 2016Gohap343 7-2]

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On June 2013, the Defendant, even though he did not have the intent or ability to repay to the victim V, knew that he would pay the user fee if he would be used as a "office" in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu AW apartment B-1401, which is the victim's ownership, and did not pay the user fee of KRW 10 million for two months and did not pay the user fee of KRW 10 million.

2. Determination

As evidence consistent with the above facts charged, the victim V stated that the investigative agency and this court stated that the defendant would pay the monthly rent of five million won, and that the defendant would use the above apartment as the office.

However, it is very exceptional that the above apartment house is leased as a place where the victim resides together with his family, and as a separate office, it seems to be excessive compared with the size (32 square meters) of the above apartment house and the method of use.

Even according to the statement of the victim, the defendant almost did not visit the above apartment, and visited only ZX, AX, etc. that are going together with the defendant from time to time. Z and AX, etc. did not have the office fixtures, etc. on the above apartment, and when visiting the above apartment, it does not seem that the victim did not have actually performed special duties. In addition, there is no fact that the victim would have paid the monthly rent that he directly agreed to the defendant. In full view of these facts, there is no fact that the victim would have provided convenience to provide a temporary place to Z and AX, etc., or that he would have promised to use the money to a certain extent. The victim's statement that the defendant acquired property profits by directly deceiving the victim as stated in the facts charged is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

In addition, there is no room for reasonable deliberation, and there is no evidence to prove the facts charged.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the defendant guilty of a crime of fraud against the victim V in the judgment that was prosecuted for a single comprehensive crime,

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge, judge and mining interference

Judge Choi Min-man

Judges Kim Gin-han

1) However, in the case of Defendant’s sole criminal conduct, Article 30 of the preceding Criminal Act is excluded.

2) However, in the case of Defendant’s sole criminal conduct, Article 30 of the preceding Criminal Act is excluded.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.