A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On October 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the Defendant in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul on October 19, 2016; and (b) there is no way to receive an investment from the injured party by separating opphones and L CDs in China; (c) however, there is no way to receive a separate supply of opphones and technology from the injured party D; and (d) if a business operator assembles and sells opphones with separate opphones and technologies, he/she may pay profits by selling 30% lower than the existing importing business operator.

When investing in money, the amount equivalent to 30% per month may be refunded as investment gains, and the full amount of the investment may be refunded if requested to suspend the investment.

“A false statement,” and its affiliated member, on October 20, 2016, obtained the delivery of KRW 30 million to a corporate bank account in the name of E in the name of the person who has engaged in the same business for the purpose of investment, and acquired it by fraud on October 25, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence prior to determining whether to deceive the details of the admission and withdrawal, the metrology, and the Kakao Stockholm, the Defendant enticed the victim as stated in the facts charged:

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the defendant and defense counsel are without merit.

① On March 2016, the Defendant invested approximately KRW 7 million in business funds, and started the business of repairing opphones with E, but it was not well-grounded in the business, following the Defendant’s statement that he/she can make profits if he/she supplied opphones in China by purchasing the opphones and liquid price at a low unit price for the opphones in China from around September 2016, and that he/she can make profits if he/she supplied the opphones in combination.

Until October 2016, the Defendant did not specifically inquire about the supply source in which he/she could separately purchase the ID and the liquid.

(2) Nevertheless, the Defendant, on October 19, 2016, committed against the victim “Aphone CD.”