1. Defendant D’s KRW 10 million to Plaintiff A, KRW 200 million to Plaintiff B, and each of the above amounts, from September 1, 2013 to February 2, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant D and C are married couple in a de facto marital relationship, and Defendant D made an investment in shares, etc. individually at home.

On the other hand, Defendant C was in close relation with 6 applicants who were the dongs of elementary schools (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”).

B. At around January 2013, seven persons including Defendant C, etc.: (a) paid a total of KRW 35 million by withdrawing money (at this time, the Plaintiffs and Defendant C, each of which was KRW 5 million); and (b) F invested this in Defendant D; (c) from May 2013, 201, 3.5 million monthly revenues were deposited into the F account for five months from May 2013.

(The sum of the proceeds received shall be KRW 17.5 million).

Around May 2013, Defendant D stated that “When a long-term scenario is organized with gifts, options, etc., Defendant D may guarantee the principal by minimizing risks. The principal security and the monthly income of 8% shall be guaranteed.” From May 2013 to June 2013, Plaintiff A invested KRW 10 million in Defendant D, and Plaintiff B invested KRW 200 million in Defendant D.

However, Defendant D was entirely unable to return each of the above investment principal, and Plaintiff B filed a complaint with the Defendants by fraud. On September 30, 2016, Defendant D did not think that Defendant D would actually make an investment.

As described in paragraph B, a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years was imposed on the facts constituting the crime that the Plaintiff (200,000,000 won) committed by deceiving the Plaintiff (20,000 won) by deceiving the Plaintiff B (2015,000,000 won, 2016, 2016, 2016, 478, 2016, 2016, 2000,000). The above judgment

(2016No6869). e

On the other hand, with regard to Plaintiff B’s complaint by fraud, the branch office of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, on October 31, 2014, it is difficult to view that Defendant C conspired on the sole basis of the fact that Defendant C introduced Defendant C as a major investor against Defendant D, and the non-prosecution decision was made on the ground that there is no other supporting evidence.

(based on recognition) Defendant C: the fact that there is no dispute, and Party A.