Defendant

A and B Imprisonment for 10 months, and Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment for 8 months, respectively.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A on September 8, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced the Seoul Central District Court to four years of imprisonment for a crime of fraud and a crime of violating the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2017.

[2016 Highest 8327]

1. Defendants B conspired in order from around 2011 to acquire a large amount of investment money from many unspecified persons by deceiving investors in the following contents: (a) Defendant B, the president of the J, the vice-chairperson of the said company, and Defendant C, the representative director of the said company, as the representative director of the said company; and (b) Defendant C, as the representative director of the said company, in the operation of the JJ.

A. According to the above conspiracy of fraud, the Defendants, while taking charge of their respective roles on September 8, 201, held a business explanation meeting at the three-story office of the Gangnam-gu Seoul KK Building (State), and the J directly manufactured vending machines that sell beer and beverages in China, and leased the proceeds therefrom to many people including the victims, including the victim L, at least 600,000, at the nationwide conference and distribute the proceeds therefrom.

It has already been invested in order to install more than 100,00 self-readers in nationwide telecom, to gain a lot of profits, and to install more self-readers in the telecom.

If 900,000 won is invested, 30,000 won already installed shall be transferred to the name of 30,000 won, and 30,000 won shall be distributed daily with such profits for the five days a week.

In other words, once re-investment of KRW 660,00 per three days, false statements were made to the effect that it would guarantee the high-income of at least 40% per month.

However, the Defendants did not directly manufacture the above vending machine in China or installed at least 100,000 self-readers in the nationwide telecom, and there was no investment money in profit-making business or profit-making business that can guarantee high profit by more than 40% per month. The Defendants’ business methods are different after receiving the investment money from the injured party.