A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

The defendant shall be liable for damages of KRW 143,596,00,000 to the applicant G.

Punishment of the crime

[2015 Highest 3509] The Defendant, based on the name of the Defendant, operated a system that operated several times for a long time with the name of “S System.” The said system was operated as “the method in which the Defendant, the principal agent for the 24 former unit, and the 24th fraternity, paid the Defendant with the payment of the paid amount at the end of each month during the 24th month period, and one of the members of the fraternity, according to the order set by the Defendant at will, receive KRW 10 million for each month.”

On December 2, 2008, the Defendant: (a) some of the community members who received the time limit money prior to the prior order did not normally pay the time limit money; (b) provided the guidance money to the community without distinguishing the head of the Tong and the Defendant’s family living expense passbook from the community members; and (c) provided the guidance to the community; and (d) provided the guidance money to the previous community members for this reason, instead of paying the guidance money which became due for the previous community members, the Defendant would enter the new system in the amount equivalent to the monthly interest, if he lends the money.

In other words, as if the payment of the accounts was postponed or the accounts were operated well by the victims, the financial situation has been continuously aggravated by operating the accounts in the manner of a prompt term, such as lending money and repaying bonds, etc., and there was a considerable amount of debts from some members, while it was difficult to exercise the claims for the accounts unpaid from some members.

1. On September 30, 2009, the defrauded of the borrowed money: “The 1.5 million won interest per month shall be given to the victimJ on September 30, 2009, and the interest shall be offset against a new credit payment.

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

However, as seen above, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to repay even if he borrowed money from the damaged party because the Defendant’s number system was under the circumstance of “to prevent a return” due to the lack of financial standing.

The defendant as above.