Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, each of the above cases against the defendants for two years from the date of the final conclusion of the judgment.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the representative director of E (the mutual change to F on January 16, 2017, after this case) who mainly engages in auction consulting, etc. of real estate units D in Suwon-si District C building, and Defendant B is a person who is in the position of chief representative at the above company.

On January 10, 2016, the Defendants held the mutual infinite coffee shop in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and held investment seminars to the participants of the seminars including victims G, including the Defendants, “if an investment of KRW 100 million is made, the Defendants shall pay the profits of KRW 100,000 per month for ten months after operating the real estate auction business and return the principal after 13 months.

“The 100 million won was delivered from the injured party on February 6, 2016.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to do business of raising funds by promising to pay the total amount of principal or an amount exceeding it in the future from an unspecified number of unspecified persons without obtaining authorization or permission, making registration or report, etc. under the statutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement related to G;

1. Investment contract;

1. Account transactions;

1. A copy of the H Membership Investment Contract [In accordance with the Defendants’ assertion, the investment seminars as indicated in the judgment were subject to one victim, and the I Member Investment Contract was prepared at the time of receiving KRW 100 million as indicated in the judgment also with the victim, in light of the contents and form of the “I Member Investment Contract,” the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: ① in light of the contents and form of the “I Member Investment Contract,” the Defendants would have prepared the said “I Member Investment Contract,” ② the name of the “I Member,” and the name of the “I Member,” and (iii) the Defendants planned a number of meetings in themselves; and (iv) the Defendants and the “I Member” at a time similar to the instant case.