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

The Defendant, as the head of the Daegu Branch Office of “D” in the 11th floor of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building, recruited to receive a certain percentage of fee from E, if he and the Defendant, the representative director of the said company, recruited many unspecified investors, and delivered investment money.

On November 16, 2016, the Defendant would pay 20% of the principal and 20% profits to the Victim F through the Stockholm message around November 16, 2016.

“A false statement was made to the effect that it was “.”

However, at the time of fact, the above company did not have sufficient means to pay the profits and did not pay the profits to the existing investors as well as to pay the profits to the existing investors. Therefore, even if receiving the investment money from the damaged party, there was no intention or ability to pay the principal and profits.

The defendant deceivings the victim as above and caused the victim to remit 70 million won to the new bank account (G) in the name of E on the 17th of the same month.

Accordingly, the defendant received property from the injured party in collusion with E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Details of account transactions, Kakao Stockholm conversation, FE suspect interrogation protocol, indictment;

1. Each investigation report (including reports on the contents of currency with the victim, separate data related to co-offenders, etc.) / The defendant and defense counsel asserted that the defendant and defense counsel have solicited the victim to make investments in the victim in trust of the horses of E, and that they do not have

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence adopted by this Court, ① the Defendant believed only the appearance of E, and did not properly confirm it with the knowledge that E does not operate a profit-making business by any means, and ② the Defendant was offered with the proposal of E to pay high-amount allowances upon the invitation of investors.