Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On February 13, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts at the Seoul Eastern District Court and the imprisonment on February 21, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 21, 2014.

The defendant was a representative director of the company B, and the above company did not own any assets, and the debt collection business conducted by the above company was very rare for collecting non-performing loans which have waived collection in financial rights, etc.

In addition, in the case of a loan business run by a company, even though the loan fund is made only as the investment fund of investors, in light of the above company's compensation system, etc., since the amount of expenditure is excessive compared to the investment fund, it is difficult to pay profits within the agreed period, considering the recovery period, etc., and it is inevitable to operate a business in a way to repay profits in order to senior investors with the investment fund attracting from priority investors. Ultimately, as long as a new investor is not additionally confined, there is a weak financial foundation for the redemption of the investment principle, such as the possibility that the payment of profits will not be made, there is no intent or ability to pay profits agreed to investors continuously or to redeem the principal.

The defendant around April 2012, around 2012, in the vicinity of the hill station located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, through C, a business employee of the defendant company, who is the business employee of the defendant company, entrusted the Korea Asset Management Corporation's claims to the victim D.

It is believed that the lending company has made a loan to another person and made an investment directly in the interest and real estate, which reduces 20% of the annual principal of the investment with the profits.

“The purpose of “ was to make a false representation.”

However, the defendant did not have the intent or ability to pay the agreed profit even if he received the investment money from the injured party.

The defendant.