2013Gohap1210A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

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

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

2014Gohap251(combined). Violation of the Labor Standards Act

E. Violation of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act

1. (a)(c)(d)(a);

2.b.B. Co., Ltd. (former Trade Name: C)

Kim Gyeong-young (Public Prosecution), Lee Inven (Public Trial)

Law Firm D (For the defendant)

Attorney E

May 2, 2014

1. The punishment against Defendant A shall be 5 years of imprisonment, and the punishment against Defendant B shall be 50 million won of fine, respectively;

2. Two books (No. 4031, No. 1, No. 4031, No. 4031 (hereinafter the same shall apply), No. 1, No. 2013 of the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor’s Office), three books of the agency management ledger (I, I, and III), one book of the management ledger of the F agency contract (No. 3), two books of the C code registration (I, II) file of the business contract (No. 4), two copies of the business license contract (No. 5), one book of the contract for the branch contract (No. 6), one book of the contract for September, one book of the status of the contract (No. 7), two copies of the two books of the contract for the month, one book of the education manual (No. 8), one book of the management ledger of the agency contract (No. 10), one book of the management ledger, one book of the management ledger of the trust contract (No. 112, 1300) and one copy of the document;

3. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the prosecution against the violation of the Labor Standards Act and the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act is dismissed, respectively.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A

The Defendant is the representative director of B Co., Ltd. (Co., Ltd. before the change on October 31, 201), which is an illegal multi-level company, and G is the president of the said company, and H is the director of the said company. On July 17, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for one year and six months in imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes

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

On January 2012, the Defendant, along with G and H, conducted a project explanation to the effect that “I will operate a business of lending financial complex terminals at our company. If I make an investment of KRW 300,000 won and KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,

However, the Defendant, G, and H had no intent or ability to secure a large number of member stores as much as they can pay the settlement fee of KRW 20,000 per week to investors, and there was no choice but to take the method of paying the profits of senior investors by using the investment funds attracting from junior investors. Therefore, insofar as the new investors did not increase in water supply, the Defendant, G, and H did not have the ability to pay the high rate of allowances promised.

In addition, the Defendant received KRW 80 million from the Victim J to February 2, 2012 under the pretext of investment in 200 financial complex terminals from 1,11. to 2, 2012, as well as from June 10, 2011 to February 2, 2012, the Defendant received a total of KRW 3.613.6 million from 334 persons in total from 3.6 billion to 3.6 million in total from 3.6 billion in the same manner as indicated in the attached list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant was provided property by deceiving victims habitually in collusion with G and H.

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

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without performing any transaction of goods, etc. by using a multi-level marketing organization or any similar organization comprised of persons who have joined a multi-level marketing organization or any similar organization, or conduct any financial transaction only by pretending the transaction of goods, etc.

However, if the defendant has invested 40,000 won (30,000 won + 100,000 won) to many and unspecified persons in B offices described in the above paragraph (1) from June 10, 201 to February 2, 201, 300,000 won (30,000 won) in one terminal, 40,000 won (30,000,000 won) in 16, 30,000,000 won and 16,000,000 won and 16,000,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000,000 won and 2,000 won and 3,000,00 won and 2,00.

Accordingly, in collusion with G and H, the Defendant committed an act of actual monetary transaction by using a multi-level organization that is composed of persons who have joined a multi-level marketing organization similar to that of multi-level marketing organizations in order to disguise the transaction of goods.

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

No person shall engage in an act of fund-raising business without obtaining authorization or permission, or making registration or report pursuant to Acts and subordinate statutes and promising to pay the total amount of investment or an amount in excess thereof in the future, and engage in any fund-raising business from many unspecified persons.

Nevertheless, without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, and reporting under the laws and regulations with G and H, the Defendant issued a business explanation meeting to the effect that “if an investment of KRW 400,000 won is made to one unit of a financial complex device, 50,000 won per week shall be paid to every 20,000 won, and additional allowances shall be paid according to the results of attracting subordinate investors” at the office of the first patrolman Co., Ltd., Ltd. on January 2, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 80,000,000 from the J to February 2, 2012, as indicated in the attached Table 1, the sum of KRW 360,360,000,000 from the investors in the same manner as indicated in the attached Table 1, from June 10 to February 2, 2011.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with G and H, committed a fund-raising act without delay.

2. Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling financial terminals.

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

The representative director of the defendant 1-B, at the time, and at the place specified in paragraph 1-B, performed only monetary transactions by pretending to trade goods, etc. using a multi-level organization as described in paragraph 1-b.

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

The representative director of the defendant A performed the act of receiving the defendant's business without delay, as described in paragraph (1)(c).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant A by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on G, H, K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, S, T, U,V, and W;

1. Each police statement given to W, J, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, and AD;

1. Documents to be submitted for report on internal investigation (business presses, gender table for attracting investment, etc.) and documents attached thereto;

1. A report on internal investigation (registration of multi-level sales business, report on door-to-door sales business, and whether the institution financial company with authority);

1. Investigation reports (Attachment to the details of financial transactions, investment funds, various allowances, etc.);

1. A protocol of seizure of police conducted on April 8, 2013;

1. Previous records of judgment: A inquiry report on criminal records, etc. and report on internal investigation (verification of the same criminal records of a person under internal investigation A);

1. Habituality of judgment: The recognition of dampness in light of the records of each crime, the method and frequency of crimes, and the fact that the same kind of crime has been committed in a planned and organized manner;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant A: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 351 of the Criminal Act; Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 9 of the Addenda to the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply); Articles 52(1)3 and 23(2) of the former Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; hereinafter the same shall apply); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 6(1) and 3 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Regulation on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 6(1) of the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized-to-Door Sales, Etc

(b) Defendant B: Article 9 of the Addenda to the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012); Articles 57(1), 52(1)3, and 23(2) (a) of the former Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act; Articles 7, 6(1), and 3 of the former Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act (the act of receiving money without permission)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: The aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes provided for in the first sentence of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is the largest penalty;

(b) Defendant B: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in a crime of violating the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act with heavy circumstances)

1. Confiscation;

Determination on the assertion of the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

There is no fact that the Defendant and his defense counsel did not explicitly assert the fact at the trial of this case because they actually distributed the device to investors and received profits therefrom (it is determined that such assertion is implied in light of the contents of the written opinion submitted at the investigation stage or the Defendant’s examination process).

2. Determination,

An act of receiving contributions from many and unspecified persons under the agreement to make payment of the total amount of contributions or an amount in excess thereof in the future without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under other Acts and subordinate statutes constitutes an act of receiving contributions from

According to evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, Defendant A may hold an investment presentation to the effect that if an investor invests more than 30,000 won in the cost of a device and 100,000 won in the cost of entrusted management with an unspecified number of unspecified persons without obtaining authorization or permission under Acts and subordinate statutes, it shall be deemed that it constitutes an act of receiving money for investment under the name of a device. Thus, the above argument shall not be accepted. (Even if the above argument is asserted that it does not constitute an act of violating the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act because of the transaction of goods, this court shall legitimately adopted and investigated the following circumstances, namely, ① the motive for the investor to pay the cost of a device and entrusted management cost, rather than to actually purchase the device and receive the fee for entrusted operation, ② the fact that the delivery certificate was prepared between Defendant B and the investor, but there is no actual fact that the investor purchased the device and the investor purchased the device, and ③ the investor purchased the device and the investor purchased the product.

Judgment on the assertion of Defendant A and Defense Counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

With respect to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the defendant only provided the victims with KRW 20,000 per share for the first four months, and there was no mentioning the period for the payment of KRW 550,00 per share, and the debt of KRW 1.90,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 won,

2. Determination

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (i) around December 31, 2010, B had been continuously reported business losses in terms of totaling KRW 890,000,000,000; and (ii) during the period stated in the facts charged in the instant case, an investment amount of KRW 90,34 was received from investors, but the number of devices purchased during the same period was not more than 210,000; (iii) investors failed to recruit a new franchise store; (iv) profits per share of the device already installed were less than KRW 1,172,461, in light of the amount and content of their business or the amount of their investment; and (ii) the Defendant, etc. asserted that the victims were unable to make profits or difficult to make profits within a short period; and (iii) the Defendant, etc., upon purchasing the device, was unable or promised to make an investment from the victims by adjusting the profits of each of the instant case to the extent that it was not possible to pay the funds to investors.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

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

(a) Determinations of type: Fraud, organized fraud, type 3 (at least 500 million won, but less than 5 billion won);

(B) Special person: A decision on the recommended area where the victims are also responsible for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage (requirements of mitigation) and have planned and status to commit the crime for a considerable period of time; where the victims have committed repeated crimes for an unspecified number of unspecified victims (as a factor of aggravation): the basic area;

D) Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment of up to seven years;

2) Application of standards for handling multiple crimes: Violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. without sentencing guidelines for the above crime for at least four years and violation of the Act on Regulation of the Act on the Regulation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), compliance with the lowest

(b) Determination of sentence;

The fact that some of the victims did not want to punish the defendant or received investment money from the defendant to AE stocks, and that a considerable portion of the received amount in the judgment is already returned to some victims in the form of investment earnings, and the actual amount of damage seems to be much less than the above received amount, and that the victims were partly causing enormous damage.

However, even though the defendant had been punished for the same crime, he planned and led to the crime of this case in which the defendant acquired enormous money from many unspecified victims in a short period of time by guaranteeing a long-term high profit with respect to the business of lending a device, and without the multi-stage structure. In light of such circumstances, the defendant seems to have been punished, and the defendant argued that most of the victims agreed to be punished. However, the victims who did not want to punish the defendant or have recovered from the damage caused by AE shares of the defendant are less than 130 if they were to exclude the overlapping number of the documents submitted by the defendant and the number of the persons not indicated in the attached Table 1, and the amount of the investment money was converted to AE shares, but the return of cash, which is the main condition of the agreement, was not entirely implemented. Considering the fact that the defendant paid investment money in cash to the rest of victims, the victims who did not have been subject to recovery of the financial structure of AE corporation cannot be seen as being disadvantageous to the defendant.

In addition, considering all the circumstances shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, the environment, the means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined within the scope of the applicable punishment by law.

2. The Defendant B was already sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, and all of the sentencing conditions on the records, including the Defendant’s internal situation and financial standing, shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged (2014 high-class 251);

Defendant A is an employer who operates a terminal manufacturer by employing 18 full-time workers under the trade name of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building A(A) 1012.

Defendant A did not pay 184,192,415 won, including 21,854,070 won and 6,213,230 won of money and valuables, such as wages and annual leave allowances of workers retired from the workplace from November 1, 2011 to April 30, 2013, and 184,192,415 won, including 158,814,925 won of money and valuables, and 25,37,490 won of retirement allowances, respectively, within 14 days of retirement without agreement on extension of the due date.

2. Determination

This part of the facts charged is a crime falling under Articles 109(1) and 36 of the Labor Standards Act, or Articles 44 subparag. 1 and 9 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, which cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 109(2) of the Labor Standards Act or the proviso to Article 44 of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. According to each written withdrawal of complaint, the employee can be acknowledged as having withdrawn his/her expression of intent to punish Defendant A on April 17, 2014, which is the date of the instant indictment. Accordingly, this part of the indictment is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 6

The transfer of judge and judge

Judges Kim Dong-dong

Judges Guide-in

A person shall be appointed.