beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
[Criminal Power] On November 9, 2006, the defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) at the Seoul Central District Court, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 13, 2007.
【Criminal Facts】
1. On April 12, 2005, the Defendant invested KRW 600,000,000 in the total amount of KRW 50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which was promoted by the FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) in the G Apartment-gu G Apartment-gu G Apartment-gu, 2005 when operating the investment company that is D Co., Ltd., but there was no plan to invest in the above apartment building project, and there was no actual investment, even though there was no plan to invest in the above apartment building project, it was against the fact that the investment principal to be returned to investors on April 2, 2005 exceeds KRW 1.7 billion,00,000,000,000,000 and the sum of the investment bond bonds of F Co., Ltd. and the amount of loan claims to be paid to investors on account of the victim’s office loss.
On April 11, 2005, the Defendant, at the D Co., Ltd. office located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H, stated that “In Korea, our company is a specialized investment company that has made much profits from investing money in the apartment building construction executor. When investing money in the apartment building construction executor, an apartment building construction executor gives a land purchase deposit to the prop with the money and receives a loan with the written consent for land use with the consent of the land use. It receives 5% of the total price of the land when collecting the investment money from the loan. Such an investment is a hybrid investment. Such an investment is a Brazil investment. Since it is KRW 25 million in the Brazil investment unit, it is an investment of KRW 25 million in the second unit.”
However, the defendant thought that the money received from the victim was used for the debt repayment to the existing investors and the office operation expenses.