2016 Highest 9377, 2016 Highest 9490 (Joint)

Violation of the Regulation of Act on the Regulation of Conducting Receipt without Permission and Door-to-Door Sales Act

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

Kim Yong-ran (prosecution) and prison-type (trial)

Law Firm Dongba (for Defendant A and B)

Attorney Kim Si-su, Park Si-su, Park Jong-won, and Choi Ho-ra

Law Firm East and South (for the defendant C)

Attorney Park Jong-woo, Man-kak, Kim Jong-young, Choi Jong-young, Lee Jong-kak, Park Jong-kak

Attorney Cho Dong-dong (for the defendant D, E, F, G, I)

Law Firm Lee, Law Firm Lee (Defendant H)

Attorney Lee Jong-jin, Justice Kim Jong-jin, Justice Lee Jong-jin, Justice Lee Jong-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

September 5, 2018

Defendant A and B Imprisonment for one year and six months, and Defendant C for 10 months, Defendant D, E, and F shall be punished by imprisonment for two years, Defendant G, H, and I for ten months.

However, with respect to Defendant C, G, H, and I, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be postponed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive. Ordering Defendant C, G, H, and I to provide community service for 80 hours each.

Criminal facts

'J' is a mining company located in California in California, and 'L' is a company operating the K site located in Hong Kong. 'J-L mining business'. 'J-K mining business' is introduced: ① if K investors purchase K at their K site and send it to the U.S. J account under the name of 'K mining business investment funds', 'J-L', 'K', 'J-K mining business', 'J-K', ② after its withdrawal 'K', 'K' and 'K enter K into the K account on a real-time basis at the rate of 0.6-85% from the date of withdrawal to the investor's J account from the date of withdrawal to the Hong Kong account, 'K' and 6 investors' transfer from the J account to the investor's account at the request of the investor's withdrawal from Hong Kong, 'Y-K' to the company's own account at the time of sale and purchase of the company', 'the company' and 20 'the company'Defendant 14.

[2016 Highest 9377]

1. Joint offenses committed by Defendant A, B, and C;

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

No person shall agree to pay the full amount of investment or an amount exceeding it in the future to conduct a business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization or permission, making registration, reporting, etc. under related Acts and subordinate statutes.

Defendant C explained 1 to R in Q Group 2: (a) from June 2014 to July 10, 2014, 1: (b) from 2014 to 25, 30,000, 1.5, 200,000,000 won, 30,000,000 won and 4,000,000 won and 50,000,000 won and 1.5,000 won and 4,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and 1.5,000 won and more (2,000,000 won and 5,000,000 won and more; (c) 3,000,000 won and more; and (d) 1,3630,000 won and more.

As a result, the Defendants agreed to pay the full amount of investment or an amount in excess of it in order to engage in the business of raising funds from many unspecified persons without obtaining authorization or permission in collusion with the president of the JJ's president, etc.

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

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or make any actual financial transaction under the pre-stage sales organization or any similar organization composed of persons who have joined a multi-stage sales organization, in disguise of any transaction of goods, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to explain the contents of the business explanation set forth in Section 1(a) at the time and place set forth in Section 1(a) as indicated in the following: (a) by using the de facto multi-level sales organization that solicits a certain person to join an existing business entity’s subordinate business entity; (b) takes out at least three stages of subscription; and (c) pays recommended allowances and bonuses to a business entity, etc., the Defendants themselves cannot be used or consumed; and (d) by issuing and delivering a virtual-level KK that can be called a certificate or information on the certificate that is actually stored and issued by electronic means or a virtual-level sales organization that provides money or money value as an information on such certificate, thereby acquiring K equivalent to KRW 252,703,00 in total, as described in Section 1(1) through No. 133 of the List of Crimes (hereinafter referred to as “J”). Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with the names, such as the Chairperson, etc. of the “J” company, and thereby, engaged only in monetary transactions or services transactions without doing so.

2. Joint offenses committed by Defendant A, B, D, E, F, H, G, and I

A. From July 8, 2014 to July 10, 2014, Defendants D, E, G, and I agreed to purchase more than 20,000 won and agreed to purchase more than 18,00,00 won from 20,000 won to 20,000 won and agreed to purchase more than 20,000 won from 20,000 won to 20,000 won and agreed to purchase more than 14,00 won from 20,000 won and agreed to purchase more than 14,00 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won to 14,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 14,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 20,000 won from 14,2014.

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

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or make any actual monetary transaction under the pre-stage sales organization or any similar organization comprised of persons who have joined a multi-stage sales organization, in disguise of any transaction of goods, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to explain the contents of the business explanation set forth in Section 1(a) at the time and at the place set forth in Section 2(a), and explain the same contents as set forth in Section 1(3). Using the de facto multi-stage sales organization that solicits preexisting enterprisers to join the business entity and pays recommended allowances and bonuses to the business entity by phase three or more, the Defendants themselves cannot be used or consumed and, in fact, issued and delivered a virtual closed-down K which can be called a certificate or information on the certificate that is actually stored and issued by electronic means of money or monetary value, and then issue and deliver it to Defendant A, B, D, E, F, G, and I together with 15 times in total, 35,341,592 won in total, as set forth in Section 14 through Section 28 of the Attached Criminal List (1). Defendant H conspired conspireded with the Chairman at 16 through No. 27 of the Attached Table (16) to 27, thereby acquiring goods or services at least 90 billion won in total or in total.

1. K-related

A. Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission of Defendant D, E, or F

Any person who intends to engage in an act of importing contributions under an agreement to pay the total amount of contributions or an amount in excess thereof to raise funds from many and unspecified persons in the future shall grant authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under Acts and subordinate statutes.

On July 7, 2014, at the Suwon branch office located on the second floor of the P building in Suwon-si, the Defendants agreed to provide the K extraction machine leasing business to W. At present, K price per 60-700,000 won per 1 co, up to 900 if the annual end of the year, the Defendants agreed to purchase 90 cos in advance and register 90 cos in J for the extraction machine and collected 20-6 cos per month, and paid 20 cos per 20 cos per month. The Defendants agreed to receive 20 cos per 20 cos per month from the date of 0.5 1 20 cos and paid 10 cos in advance from the date of 10 cos and 30 cos and 10 cos and 10 cos and 20 cos and 10 cos and 20 cos and 30 cos and 10 cos and 4 os.

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act by Defendant D, E, or F

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or make any actual financial transaction under the pre-stage sales organization or any similar organization composed of persons who have joined a multi-stage sales organization, in disguise of any transaction of goods, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendants issued and delivered K, which is a virtual currency that can be called a certificate or information on such certificate, and is a virtual currency that can be called a certificate or an information on money or money amounting to 993,430,000 won in total over 18 times, as shown in the attached list of crimes, by soliciting a specific person to join an existing subordinate business entity in a manner such as Paragraph 1(a) and having a business entity join at least three stages, and using a sales organization that actually pays recommendation allowances and bonuses to a business entity, etc., by itself, its use of a multi-stage sales organization that actually pays recommendation allowances and bonuses to the business entity. Accordingly, the Defendants acquired K equivalent to 93,430,000 won in total through a multi-stage sales organization or a multi-stage sales organization, in collusion with the Chairman of J, etc. Accordingly, the Defendants pretended the transaction of goods or services without the transaction of goods or services.

2. On June 30, 2016, the company X-related Y (the indictment of non-detained to the Busan District Court) and Z (the indictment of non-detained to the Busan District Court on June 30, 2016) operated the Korean branch offices in X-gu Co., Ltd. which actually received investment money through ice Y, and the Defendant D, E, and F operated the Friwon branch offices in X-gu.

A. Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission of Defendant D, E, or F

Any person who intends to engage in an act of importing contributions under an agreement to pay the total amount of contributions or an amount exceeding such amount in the future to raise funds from many and unspecified persons shall grant authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under Acts and subordinate statutes.

around August 29, 2014, the Defendants conspired to pay KRW 108,000 calculated by subtracting KRW 12,000 (10%) from KRW 12,00 per week (6 days) to the victim AB and W for Korean people at the Suwon Branch Office located on the second floor of the Suwon-gu P building, “AC is created on behalf of the Korean people, and AE doctor, at any time when installing glass, can be seen as doing so) and 2,50,000 won per unit in the Myanmar-mar mining business, 10,000 won per week (6 days) and 100,000 won per week less KRW 30,000,000,000 from 150,000 won per week, and received KRW 20,000,000 from 30,000,000 won per week, 20,0000,000 won per month, 305,000.

B. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act by Defendant D, E, or F

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or make any actual financial transaction under the pre-stage sales organization or any similar organization composed of persons who have joined a multi-stage sales organization, in disguise of any transaction of goods, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendants determined Y as one enterpriser Z, two enterprisers AF, three enterprisers F, Defendant F, Defendant E, and D, etc., with the method as set forth in paragraph 2(a), at the time, at the place, and with the method as set forth in paragraph 2(a). Each enterpriser recruited subordinate salespersons and received KRW 459,000,000 via 33 times in total, as described in the attached list of crimes (3) in the manner of paying allowances according to class. Accordingly, in collusion with Y, the Defendants only carried out money transactions without the transaction of goods or services or pretended the transaction of goods or services by using a multi-stage sales organization or multi-stage similar organization.

Summary of Evidence

[2016 Height9377] [Defendant A and B]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A and B;

1. Each legal statement of the witness R, V and U;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, F, G, H, E, and I;

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

1. Each police interrogation protocol of the defendant A and B;

1. D. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning H;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning V;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of AG, I, G, C, D, E, F, AH, and H;

1. Each police statement of V, U, and R;

1. G statements;

1. Each written statement of R, U, and V;

1. A written confirmation of AI;

1. Proxy form, complaint form, data located in the AJ Center, AK photograph, certified copy of corporate register, cash investment and recovered amount, statement of mining lease business, R Investment and recovered amount, results of compiling the status of damage from the J, evidence verification of the status of damage from the J, organization, investigation report (in addition to counsel's opinion), complainant's written opinion, statement of opinion, statement of account transactions (R) and profit and loss from each deposit account, certificate of transaction performance of the AL site, comprehensive statement, report on the current status of profit and loss from investment (I) (with respect to the defendant C);

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness R and B;

1. Partial statement of the witness A;

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution against A;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of A, B, A, and H;

1. The police statement concerning R;

1. Written statement of R;

1. Proxy form, letter of complaint, data located in the AJ Center, AK photograph, certified copy of corporate register, cash investment and collection, statement of mining leasing business, statement of mining lease business, R investment and collection amount, results of compiling the status of damage from the J, evidence verification of J accession, investigation report (in addition to counsel's opinion), statement of opinion by the complainant, statement of account transaction [Defendant D, E, F, G, and I];

1. Each legal statement of the defendant D, E, F, G, and I;

1. Each legal statement of witness V, B and U;

1. Each legal statement of a witness A and H in part;

1. An interrogation protocol of Defendant D by the prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on the accused I, G, D, E, and F

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution against A;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning V;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of A, B, A, H, and H;

1. Each police statement made to V and U;

1. Each written statement of U and V;

1. A written confirmation of AI;

1. Status of statement of transactions of profit and loss from investment (I against Defendant H) in the power of attorney, letter of complaint, AJ Center's materials, AK photograph, certified transcript of corporate register (with respect to a corporation), each organization, investigation report (in addition to written opinions of counsel), written opinion of the complainant, written evidence of transaction performance of each deposit (V), comprehensive statement of deposit, report, and statement of transaction of profit and loss from investment;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness V and B;

1. Each legal statement of a witness A, D, F, G, E, and I;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol about A and D;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning V;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol on A, B, AG, AH, I, G, D, E, or F;

1. Statement of the police concerning V;

1. V's written statement;

1. A written confirmation of AI;

1. Proxy letter, complaint letter, data located in the AJ Center, AK photograph, certified transcript of corporate register (0 corporation), each organization map, criminal investigation report (in addition to written opinions of counsel), written opinion of the complainant, written evidence of each deposit transaction record (V), comprehensive table, and guidance [Attachment];

1. Each legal statement of Defendant D, E, and F;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant F, E, or D;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on Y or Z;

1. Written statement by the police;

1. The statement of complaint, details of investment, the certificate of deposit as a result of transfer of each account transaction, J-OX, the statement of investment presentation, the photograph of the investment presentation, the full registered matters (mainX), the statement of transfer, the statement of transfer to K and X-invested data, the statement of transfer to K in 14 years, the current status of investment profit and loss from the transactions of passbook, K in this year, the marking of Hong Kong survey data, X product data, borrowed certificates, investigation reports (instigator and suspect telephone investigation), investigation reports (instigating two suspects and F party recruitment allowances and their status as business operators), the report of investigation (instigating of suspect and F party recruitment allowances and their status as business operators), the copy of the written indictment, the report of investigation [Attachment], the list of crimes (1) (2), the meeting of cases (U.S. District Court Decision 2016Da3465, 4984, Nov. 25, 2016), the judgment of the competent district court (consecting the rulings).

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant A, B, D, E, and F: Article 6(1) and (3) of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Door-to-Door Sales, etc. without Permission); Articles 58(1)4 and 24(1)1 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act); Selection of imprisonment

Defendant C, G, H, and I: Articles 6(1) and (3) of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in violation of the Regulation on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act); Articles 58(1)4 and 24(1)1 of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in violation of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act); and

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (as to Defendant C, G, H, and I)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 (Defendant C, G, H, and I) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. The assertion;

A. The Defendants’ payment to the Defendants is K not money, but K, and K can obtain the price for the difficult academic problem presented by the computer, and it constitutes goods that are traded through an exchange. As such, ① Payment of the total amount of investment or an amount exceeding the amount to be made in the future to run a business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons without obtaining authorization, permission, registration, report, etc. under the related Acts and subordinate statutes does not constitute a violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., which punishs the acts of receiving the investment, and ② Use of a multi-stage sales organization or similar organization, which is composed of persons who joined the multi-stage sales organization or any similar organization, to trade money without the transaction of goods, etc. or to punish the acts of actually making only money transaction by pretending the transaction of goods, etc.

B. Defendant A

Although the defendant, as the representative director of L corporation, operated the K Exchange, the defendant did not have committed a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business and Door-to-Door Sales, etc., such as recruiting investors in collusion with other co-defendants.

C. Defendant C.

The Defendant did not take charge of soliciting investors in L Co., Ltd.. The Defendant believed the horses of Defendant A and B and invested KRW 1140,000,000 in KRW 110,000,000, but did not recover KRW 210,300,000. Although the Defendant talked about the K extraction business to R, the Defendant did not invite or invite investment against R. Accordingly, the Defendant cannot be said to have committed a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business or Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. in collusion with other co-defendants, such as the president of J's company.

D. Defendant H

1) Among the facts charged against the defendant, the date and amount in the annexed list of crimes (1) are stated only in the case of purchasing K in the K Exchange, and the corresponding amount is not invested in the JJ's company. Thus, it cannot be said that the facts charged are specified.

2) The Defendant merely caused damage exceeding KRW 300 million by falling under a multi-level sales organization, and cannot be said to have committed a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Similar-Raising Activities or Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., in collusion with other co-defendants, including those who have failed to obtain the name, such as the president, etc., by taking charge of soliciting investors at the branch offices of the multi-level sales organization.

(e) Defendant D, E, F, G, I

The Defendants did not receive any investment under the agreement to engage in a business of raising funds from many and unspecified persons, or to pay the total amount of investment or the amount in excess thereof, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business and Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act in collusion with other co-defendants.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the summary of the relevant facts charged is as follows: (a) in collusion with the Defendants, such as the Chairman of the JJ's president, if the investors purchase K at the K transaction site and send it to the U.S. J account under the name of "K mining business investment funds"; (b) the J withdraws from the K; and (c) if the accounts are settled every year from the date of withdrawal to the investors' J account in real time, the profit rate shall be 143% or 224%, and if the principal is collected for four months to five months, the profits shall be earned thereafter; and (d) if the Defendants recruited the subordinate business after the investment of the investment funds, they shall be paid 20% of the performance amount to the recommending party; and 30% of the performance amount to the small performance group to the investors in the U.S. account, the funds shall be given to the investors in the U.S. account by explaining the results to the investors in the transaction.

Although an investor purchased K at the K site and returned it to K again after sending it to the U.S. J account, the profit rate is 143% or 224% when settling one year, so long as the profit rate is 143% or 224%, and the subsequent return of the amount exceeding the amount of the investment K is made in the future, it can be evaluated that the investor made an agreement to pay more than the amount of the investment exceeding the amount of the investment in the future after calculating the amount of the investment in the future under the circumstances in which K can be immediately sold and commercialized. Moreover, even if there is a possibility that the initial purchase cost would not exceed the amount of the investment in the future when the K is commercialized due to the repeated sale of the price of the K, it cannot be viewed that there is any possibility that the initial purchase cost would not exceed the amount of the investment in the future.

Furthermore, the study problem proposed by K can be obtained as a consideration for the problem of study, and it does not correspond to the goods directly satisfy the needs of people. As seen earlier, insofar as it can be seen that the Defendants agreed to pay an amount exceeding the amount of money invested in the future by calculating the amount of money invested in the K unit, it can be deemed that it constitutes an act of performing money transaction without any transaction of goods, etc. or a transaction of goods, etc. by pretending to do so.

B. In relation to Defendant A’s assertion, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize the crime. Although there was no parent process of the entire conspiracy, if the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even if there was no direct involvement in the conduct, even if there was a person involved in the conduct, he/she is held liable as a co-principal for the other conspiracy’s conduct (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2144, Jun. 1, 2007).

The Court has duly adopted and investigated each of the above evidence, i.e., the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court as a whole, i.e., the 'J-L mining business': ① if K investors purchase K at their own K trading sites and send it to the U.S. J account under the name of 'K mining business investment funds', ii) after the withdrawal, K enters K in real time at the rate of 0.6-85% per day from the date of withdrawal to the investors' J account; ④ if the investors request to withdraw from Hong Kong L from the J account, K transfers the money from the 'K account' to the investors' account; ⑤ If the investors request to withdraw from the Hong Kong, 6 investors can exchange this money from their own K trading sites to the investors' account; 7) if the investors purchase the money from the subordinate business operators after the investment, they can not receive the investment funds from the 'Korean Association' to the 'K Association' and 3% of the results of the investment recommendation by the sub-business operators, and then receive the funds from the J group.

C. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by this court based on the aforementioned evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court as to Defendant C’s assertion, i.e., “JJ-L extraction business” as above, Defendant’s explanation and explanation to Plaintiff A as to Defendant A’s “J-L extraction business,” and offered investors, Defendant cannot be exempted from joint liability as a crime of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Illegal Collection and Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. of the Act on the Regulation of Unfair Solicitation and Use of Act, i.e., the name and the name and the name and the name and the name and the name and the name and the name and the name of other co-defendants, as indicated in Defendant A’s explanation and explanation to R as they are, and then R was sent to R 13 times in total from July 1, 2014 to July 25, 2014, K equivalent to KRW 252,703,000, from Korea’s K trading site.

D. As to Defendant H’s assertion

1) As to the determination of the facts charged, the facts charged are that the Defendants conspired with the Defendants to purchase K at the K trading site, such as the Chairperson of the JJ, and sent it to the U.S. J account. From among the facts charged, even if the date and amount indicated in the annexed list of crimes (1) refer to the date and amount of purchase of K at the K Exchange, it may be deemed to be aimed at specifying the date of sending it to the U.S. J account and its value. Thus, the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been specified.

2) The following circumstances that can be recognized by this court after compiling each of the above evidence duly adopted and investigated on the establishment of a public offering relationship, i.e., "JJ's president, etc." opened an office in Gangnam-gu and recruited investors in relation to "J-L extraction business" by explaining the above contents as to "J-L extraction business". In light of the fact that the defendant received the explanation from Defendant E, etc. and explained it to V as it is, the defendant's name and door-to-door sales from September 12, 2014 to December 28, 2014 as stated in Nos. 16 to 27 of the annexed Crime List (1) and the annexed Table Nos. 16 to 2014, 341, 592 won, and sent them to the account of "J". In particular, in light of the fact that the defendant, as the co-defendant 2's name and door-to-door sales from the defendant's account, he could not be seen as being the defendant 2.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that U, AM (N) and AO have been involved in purchasing K equivalent to KRW 54,00,000 in total on three occasions from July 10, 2014 to August 4, 2014 and sending it to J's account, such as explaining about ‘J-LK mining business', and there is no evidence to support that U et al. have known that U et al. purchased K equivalent to KRW 54,00,000 in total three times in total and sent it to the account of J's account. Accordingly, as to this part, it cannot be said that JJ is a co-principal of a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving and Receiving Act and Door-to-Door Sales, etc. with Names, etc. and other co-defendants.

E. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by this Court based on the arguments of Defendant D, E, F, G, and I, and the following circumstances, namely, “J-J's Chairman, etc.” provided a business explanation as to “J-K extraction business” and recruited investors, Defendant D, E, and F provided a fact-finding on the second floor of the Suwon-si P Building in Suwon-si, and provided a explanation of the business explanation, and Defendant G, and directly recruited investors, Defendant G, and other co-defendants, the above Defendants agreed to pay the full amount or an amount exceeding the investment amount in the future to raise funds in collusion with other co-defendants, such as the Chairman, etc. of the J's J company and other co-defendants, and received a multi-stage sales organization or any similar organization that is similar to those of the two sub-stages, and recognized only the fact that the above Defendants engaged in money transactions or goods transactions without any trade in goods or other goods.

Therefore, it can be said that the above defendants committed a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission and Door-to-Door Sales Act in collusion with the false names such as the president of the JJ and other co-defendants.

3. Sub-resolution:

Defendant H’s assertion partially accepted and the remaining Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

[Defendant A] There is a favorable condition for Defendant A, in addition to the fine imposed on the violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc. three times more than ten years prior to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, such as there is no history of any particular criminal punishment.

However, there is no doubt about the possibility of realizing such as guaranteeing excessive high-income while presenting the business contents that have not been verified by the defendant. There is also a disadvantage, such as introducing a multi-level investment business of multi-level structure in Korea to attract investors against many and unspecified persons, which eventually leads to the realization of considerable damage.

In full view of such circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined as ordered.

[Defendant B] There are extenuating circumstances such as recognizing the crime of this case and showing that the defendant is against the law.

However, there is a doubt about the possibility of realizing such as guaranteeing excessive high-income while presenting the business contents that have not been verified by the defendant. However, there are unfavorable circumstances such as the fact that many people are at risk of suffering damage by actively promoting the multi-level structure investment business, and that the actual damage has been realized.

In full view of such circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined as ordered.

[Defendant C] There are extenuating circumstances such as the fact that a person who made an investment by his solicitation does not want to be punished against the defendant, and that there is no past record of criminal punishment during that period.

However, there is no doubt about the possibility of realizing such as guaranteeing excessive high-income by presenting the business contents that have not been verified by the defendant, and there is also a disadvantage such as inducing investors in the multi-level structure investment business, thereby causing many people to suffer damage, and realizing substantial damage.

In full view of such circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined as ordered.

[Defendant D, E, and F] There are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendants’ acknowledgement of the instant crime and the fact that they seem to be against the Defendant, and the violation of the Resident Registration Act once each time, etc., the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act.

However, there is a doubt about the possibility of realizing such as guaranteeing excessive high-income by actively opening an office and presenting the business contents that have not been verified. However, there is an unfavorable circumstance, such as the fact that there is a risk that many people will suffer damage by attracting investors, and that substantial damage has been realized.

Such circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime were committed, the sentence identical to the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings.

[Defendant G and I] There are extenuating circumstances such as the Defendants’ acknowledgement of the instant crime and the fact that there is no past record of criminal punishment during that period.

However, there is no doubt about the possibility of realizing such as guaranteeing excessive high-income in the presentation of the business contents that have not been verified by the Defendants. However, there is also some unfavorable circumstances such as inducing investors in the multi-level structure investment business, thereby causing many people to suffer damage, and realizing substantial damage.

Such circumstances and the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime were committed, the sentence identical to the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings.

[Defendant H] There are extenuating circumstances such as not only criminal punishment of a fine for a violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) but also criminal punishment for a violation of the Road Traffic Act.

However, there is no doubt about the possibility of realizing such as guaranteeing excessive high-income by presenting the business contents that have not been verified by the defendant, and there is also a disadvantage such as inducing investors in the multi-level structure investment business, thereby causing many people to suffer damage, and realizing substantial damage.

In full view of such circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments in this case shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. This part of the facts charged against Defendant H

(a) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission;

From July 8, 2014 to 2014.7 and around October 10, 2014, the Defendant provided an explanation to U.S. 2's two-story P Co., Ltd. for 01 to 40 billion won and then provided an explanation to 1.5 billion won and 200 billion won for 20 billion won for 30 billion won and 4.4 billion won for 20 billion won for 30 billion won and 1.4 billion won for 4 billion won for 30 billion won and 4 billion won for 30 billion won for 40 billion won and for 4 billion won for 300 million won for 4 billion won and for 4 billion won for 300 million won for 1.6% for 3 billion won and 4 billion won for 300 million won for 30 million won and 1.4 billion won for 3 billion won and for 4 billion won for 300 million won and for 1.5 billion won for 3 billion won and more for 4 billion won.

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

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or make any actual financial transaction under the pre-stage sales organization or any similar organization composed of persons who have joined a multi-stage sales organization, in disguise of any transaction of goods, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendant explained the contents of the business explanation set forth in paragraph 1(a) at the time and place as set forth in paragraph 1(a)(3). The Defendant, using a multi-level sales organization that solicits a certain person to join an existing sub-business entity and allows a business entity to join more than three stages, and pays recommendation allowances and bonuses to a business entity, etc., he/she itself cannot be used or consumed, and issued and delivered K, which is virtual currency, which is a certificate or virtual currency that can be called a document stored and issued by electronic means and is an information on money or money value, or a document that can be called an information on such certificate, and acquired K in the aggregate of KRW 54,00,000,000 in total three times, such as the document set forth in subparagraph 14, 15, and 28 of the attached Table of Crimes (hereinafter referred to as “J”) in collusion with the name in the name of the sub-business entity, such as the Chairperson, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant used a multi-level sales organization or a multi-level sales organization.

2. Determination

As stated in Article 3-4(d)(2) of the judgment on the Defendants’ assertion.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are when there is no proof of the facts charged, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising without Permission and the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. under Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the facts charged in relation

Judges or higher-ranking

1) The Internet virtual currency developed by 'M' around 2009 is stored in K account (one electronic wall), opened on the K trading website, and K

K transactions are conducted on the basis of the account. K is obtained in return for the problem of study which the computer presents.

In addition, the process of making K is expressed as brooming in the light industry. There is a change in the market price according to the market price.

At the time of the case, the 1coin was equivalent to 600,000 won.

2) ① The phase (2) is the normal process. However, in the case of the phase (3), K is admitted at a rate of 0.66 to 0.85% per day.

In spite of not giving rise to it, as if K entered into the Internet site in real time, it is false to induce investors as if it were entered into the Internet site.

around December 2014, investors who are suspected of the fraud have requested K withdrawal on the Hong Kong L website.

It was discovered that it was a fraud because it was not withdrawn, and it was under investigation by Hong Kong on the relevant persons.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.