A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has provided investment advisory services for unlisted stocks with the trade name “C” from the Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office B from November 2018, 2018.

On January 15, 2019, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim F who participated in the investment presentation at E substitute point in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, stating that when market price gains occur, the Defendant would distribute profits to 6:4."

However, even if the defendant is transferred the purchase fund of the "G" from the victim, he did not have the intent and ability to use it for the purchase of the "G" as agreed by the victim.

As above, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim and deceiving the victim from the victim, received a total of KRW 110 million from the victim, including KRW 50,000 on January 16, 2019 and KRW 60,000 on February 13, 2019, from the Defendant, to the H J account in the name of H that the Defendant used.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a complaint (including the attached Kakax content and the details of deposit and withdrawal from accounts);

1. Where the same kind of crime is repeatedly committed against the same victim in property crimes, such as fraud, under the single and continuous criminal intent in the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts and the choice of punishment, each crime may constitute a single comprehensive crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). In addition, the court recognizes the criminal facts charged as they are, with regard to the criminal facts charged as a substantive concurrent crime, and recognizes the same as they are, even if the legal evaluation on the number of crimes is imposed differently, it does not affect the defense of the defendant, and thus, the court may punish the same as a single comprehensive crime without any changes in the indictment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do546, Jul. 21, 1987). Prosecutor considers each of the fraudulent acts in the instant facts charged as substantive concurrent crimes.