2016 Highest 3177 Violation of the Act on Fraud and Door-to-Door Sales, Etc.

Application for a compensation order (attached list), 2016 early 105, etc.

A

Freeboard (prosecutions) and the highest court;

Law Firm B, Attorney C

November 20, 2017

The defendant shall be innocent.

The full rejection of an application for compensation filed by an applicant for compensation.

Indictment

1. Fraud;

On August 22, 2013, the Defendant stated to the effect that “The Defendant would pay the victim G a larger profit from the overseas business, such as FX M& brokerage business, which is represented by H,” and that “if the FX M& brokerage business is invested more than KRW 10,000,000,000,000, the Defendant would pay 2% of the monthly investment amount as profit dividends and return the principal after one year.”

However, H does not have assets or profit-making enterprises to pay high-rate earnings to the victims, and there is no possibility of realizing considerable profits within a short period due to lack possibility of success, and there is no possibility of realizing considerable profits within a short period of time after it was closed up on February 2008, 201, and around October 2014, after establishing a foreign corporation from around September 201 to conducting overseas business, such as the FX M&M brokerage business, etc., and no foreign corporation established a foreign corporation, from around September 2010 to around September 2, 2016, H used a total amount of KRW 4,84.3 billion to lend money to investors or to redeem the principal and interest of investors, and even if the foreign corporation did not have the ability to use it as the principal and interest of the business in the form of a multi-level investment brokerage or loan from victims, etc.

The Defendant had the victim enter into an investment agreement with H on the same day, and received KRW 10,00,000 from the victim’s account in the name of H, from August 25, 2016, and had the victim make an investment in an overseas business run by H, such as FX M& brokerage business, from August 25, 2016, the Defendant obtained a total of KRW 138,416,480,000 from the victims, and acquired it by fraud.

2. Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act;

No one shall conduct any financial transaction without any transaction of goods, etc., or conduct any gold transaction only by pretending the transaction of goods, etc. using a multi-stage organization or any similar organization which is comprised of persons who have joined a multi-stage group.

Nevertheless, H, at the 8th floor of the K Building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, at the 18 branch offices in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and 23 branch offices in Seoul, the branch office head shall be the head of the headquarters in accordance with the investment attraction performance by each branch office, and the head of the headquarters shall have a multi-level business organization consisting of the branch office head, the head of the headquarters, and the head of the team team, and the head of the team, who shall appoint part of the persons in his custody as the team leader, and if the defendant pays 5-7% of the monthly investment attraction to each branch, he shall pay the remainder of the restrictions on the dividend payment to investors by the head of the branch office, the head of the headquarters, the head of the team, and the head of the group.

The Defendant, among the 18 branches, is the F Branch, using the aforementioned multi-level organizations, raising a large amount of income from the overseas business operated by H, such as FX M&C brokerage.

When investing in H’s business, investors were given a total of KRW 138,416,480,000 over 5,065 times from August 22, 2013 to August 25, 2016, by guaranteeing the distribution of profits by 1-10% per month from their earnings, and by inducing investors to “to return the principal after one year.” Accordingly, the Defendant was given a total of KRW 138,416,480,000 through a multi-level similar organization to a multi-level organization to engage in money transactions without any transaction of goods, etc. or to make a de facto monetary transaction by pretending the transaction of goods, etc.

Determination:

[Fraud]

1. The judgment of H related case was sentenced to five years of suspension of execution for three years of imprisonment on June 19, 2015 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da1130 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Do2786 Decided January 29, 2012 and was sentenced to three years of suspension of execution for two years of imprisonment on January 29, 2016 in Supreme Court Decision 2016Do2786 Decided August 29, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “former case”). The judgment of H was finalized after being sentenced to the dismissal of final appeal on August 29, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “former case”).

H In other words, the Defendant et al. was indicted on September 21, 2016 and sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment on February 3, 2017 in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Dahap932 decided on February 3, 2017, and the appellate court was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment on September 13, 2017 in the Seoul High Court Decision 2017-595, which is the appellate court.

2. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The Defendant, like ordinary investors, believed that H’s investment business was a genuine business, did not receive investment money from investors, but did not intend to commit fraud, with the knowledge that the investment business was in collusion with H or fraud.

3. There is no direct evidence that the prosecutorial evidence accused has conspired with H or that the H’s business was false. The prosecutor presents the following indirect evidence:

① Around January 2012, the lower court’s lower court’s criminal facts regarding the “transfer case” stated that even if H receives money from the victims, such as using a total of 13 billion won in return for the interest of the lessee, it is not possible to use the money for the FX M transaction.

H and the executive officers of the branch office and the head office such as the defendant were present at the meeting of H and the advisory lawyer of the company during the 'former case', and the branch office was convened with the head of the branch office in response to frequent trials.

It is not persuasive to believe that H's speech is a crime of fraud because it was ruled to be a return to the judgment of "transfer case", and it is not possible to believe that H's business is a crime of fraud because H's business to receive distribution of investment attraction is not profit-making and is not returned, and thus constitutes fraud, and it is recognized that the defendant did not properly notify the investors of the contents or substance of the "transfer case" or the business.

② The president of the branch office H held a branch office and almost monthly director-class employees of the branch office and discussed and decided important matters regarding the business. Specifically, with respect to the results of the 'transfer case' trial, the decision of the suspension of execution was subject to consultation with the general investors to publicize the fact that there is no actual crime. In addition, as the 'transfer case' recognized the attraction of investment in the form of the loan for consumption and loan for consumption as an illegal act of receiving the principal and a fraudulent act, the 'transfer case' changed the 'new investment agreement' into a new investment agreement that reflects the fact that the principal is not guaranteed to avoid it, and the H proposed to reflect the contents that the principal is not guaranteed to avoid it in the investment agreement, but because the branch office head did not oppose the branch office head, the Defendant et al.

③ Specific participation by the Defendant, etc.

The investment attraction of ordinary investors, who are victims, was conducted at 18 points operated by the defendant, etc., and the phrase "principal security" was deleted while changing the investment agreement to the investment agreement, but it was true that there is no possibility of loss of principal and enormous profits.

H If there is no loss of principal due to ‘law woman' and profit-making occur, the Defendants participated in fraud only for the purpose of profit-making by the inducement of investment without confirming the substance of the business, even though they could have easily known the details of the principal investment and the details of the deposit of revenue from foreign countries through H.

(4) Criminal records after committing the crime.

After H was detained in this case, the Defendant et al., did not act as a victim, but did not act systematically as a victim, avoided investigation or have destroyed evidence, and took actions such as preventing investors from reporting damage to each location. Specifically, the Defendant et al. prepared response in the manner of "I are aware that I would have made an active investment", "I would have known that I would have made an answer without permission of attorney, and that I would not know that I would have made an actual investment," and "I would not know that I would have an active investment."

4. Review:

(1) Whether H’s business was fraudulent as a whole case

'The preceding case' was reported to the media during the investigation or public trial, and most of ordinary investors were interested in the actual condition of H's business, and the final and conclusive process of being convicted of fraud was also known to all investors. The prosecution held that the defendant et al. employees of the branch office or head office such as the defendant were in major positions H next to H in the company, discussed and decided on the business direction through the branch office meeting each month, and held a meeting as to the response method and the promotion direction for investors by attending the meeting of the advisory lawyer at this meeting, the defendants were aware that the representative could not return the substance of the business at the same level as H. However, the defendants committed fraud by inducing continuous investment by changing the form of a loan for consumption only into an investment contract.

On the other hand, the gist of the arguments by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not at all the place to discuss and decide on the important matters of the project, but at the branch office meeting, H has exclusively decided and processed such matters. Such decisions and future plans are merely the place in which they are delivered to ordinary investors early, and therefore, they are the same as ordinary investors, and this is also the same in relation to the case of transfer.

In addition, on April 11, 2016, before the court of final appeal rendered a ruling, 100 persons such as the branch office and the investors, etc. explain very detailed contents of the previous case on April 11, 2016. However, in conclusion, it is extremely distorted to the effect that the business entity continues to engage in fraud, rather than fraud, it is the State's intention that the business will continue to engage in fraud. Here, the defendants did not know that the general investors are arrested, and that the executives of the branch office are not allowed to take advantage of the same level of perception as the advisory lawyer at the meeting of the head office on June 2, 2016. In other words, the defendants' testimony at the meeting of the head office on June 11, 2016 are not the same as the defendant's witness at the meeting of the general investors. In other words, the same purport as the defendants' testimony at the meeting of the head office on June 4, 2016.

If the circumstances are the same as above, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendants were aware of the fact that the H's business constitutes a return-free fraud through the ‘transfer case', and rather, it seems that the defendants were aware of the fact that the H's business constituted a return-free fraud through ‘transfer case' through the distortion and error of H and L, it would have been actively conducted.

(2) Whether a branch office-head meeting is an administrative council sharing the status of H and project.

In conclusion, in light of the recording records of the branch office's meeting, the branch office's meeting is not the highest decision-making body that decides the main contents of the business or not the consultative body, but the representative H who is the one decision-making body, and it appears that the branch office's meeting is merely the form of confirming the portion of the branch office's office's office by directly receiving it from the representative as well as the other employees of the head office or branch office.

On the other hand, the issue of 'the previous case' is whether the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the branch office or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group or the head of the group is aware of the company.

③ Whether the Defendants’ intention is inferred in light of their roles such as inducing investment and promoting their branch offices, etc. and the enormous fee revenues.

The attracting of investment in this case was conducted at the branch and the head of the branch is recognized as being the person in charge of the operation of the branch. However, the branch is not conducted by the head of the branch, but by the following classes, and there is no essential difference between the head of the branch and the other class in the role of attracting investment. The head of the branch regularly has the authority and obligations to participate in the branch and the head of the branch and the other class. The head of the branch has the authority and obligations to participate in the meetings of the representative H within the branch, and is allocated within the branch and is responsible for overall administration of the branch, and is different from other employees. First of all, the actual circumstances at the meeting of the head of the branch and the meeting are seen above, it appears that the head of the branch and the most preferred and important target of the H periodically are to attract the head of the branch to regularly announce the most preferred and important results of the branch and to explain the actual results of the H’s business in the second half of the year by presenting the first 20-year-old branch and the second 16-year-old branch.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the agreement on guarantee of principal was deleted in the investment agreement and actively explained that the branch parties such as the branch heads have no possibility of loss of principal. Rather, many investors are aware of the possibility of loss of principal in this law, but they believe H's business prospects.

Since the beginning of the investigation into H case, the testimony was made under the name of H in this case, and later the testimony was made under the real name, the most favorable witness to the prosecutor's office, and thus, the part of the statement favorable to the Defendants is deemed to be reliable. However, after the ‘transfer case' when attracting investment in the branch, the head of the branch office sufficiently explains the possibility of loss of principal after the ‘transfer case', and the head of the branch office believed that the actual investment business was conducted after hearing H's explanation and thought that the issue of violation of the law in the previous case will be resolved, and the meeting of the head of the branch office testified that the public relations materials used at the branch office are only the place delivered by the representative, and that the public relations materials used at the branch were not produced at the branch office only at the place of use.

④ If the investment project of the head of the branch office after the instant case is recognized as a fraud, it is sufficiently anticipated that the Defendants, such as the head of the branch office that has induced direct investment from investors, would be subject to civil and criminal liability. In fact, the Defendants are doing so. There is a need for response and preparation for defense, even if there is no actual intent of fraud because the Defendants failed to do so with H, and the Defendants’ preparation for conduct and response related thereto by the prosecution is deemed to be considerable to this extent, and furthermore, conforms to the substance of fraud, as seen earlier. Accordingly, it is insufficient to conceal the intent of the crime of fraud.

5. Conclusion

Since it is insufficient to recognize the criminal intent of the defendant with the prosecutor's evidence, it is not guilty on the ground that the crime is not proven (Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The elements of the crime applied to this part are that a multi-level marketing organization or any similar organization composed of persons who have joined a step-by-stage organization has traded money without the transaction of goods.

(Ga) The Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., and Article 24(1)1 of the former part of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., the defense counsel asserts that the above elements of the crime are not applicable in this case where the pertinent provisions of the Act including the above elements

2. Strict interpretation based on the conformity of the entire provisions of the Act;

① Article 1 of the above Act provides that "the matters concerning fair trade of goods or services"; ② Article 2 defines the area of application of this Act as a common concept and premise that the requirements for application of the above Act are derived from "sales business of goods or services ("goods, etc.")" (see Article 2 subparagraph 1); ③ Multi-level marketing "multi-level marketing", which is a requirement for interpreting the remainder of selective pattern at the same time as the selective form of constituent elements, shall be construed as "sale of goods, etc." through a sales organization meeting all the requirements of the following items (hereinafter "multi-level marketing organization"), and thus, the sales of goods or services is presumed to be presumed to be "sales organization" and "sales organization", which is used for the terms of "sales organization" and "sales organization" as its head office, which is similar to those of the sales organization, shall not be construed as "sales organization," and thus, it shall not be construed as an "sales organization, etc., which is substantially similar to those of the sales organization established by the defendant as its head office."

Therefore, even if the defendant's business of attracting investment is "money transaction without a transaction of goods or services" (investment attraction service is expected to have no trade of goods or services in essence), it is not a sales organization or other sales organization composed of persons who have joined a multi-level marketing organization or any similar step-by-level member in the form of such act, but there is insufficient evidence to deem that the defendant used such organization.

3. Interpretation based on historical or legislative intent

A. The summary of the Constitutional Court Decision 2009Hun-Ba329 Decided April 24, 2012 is referred to as the so-called "money multi-level not premised on transaction of goods, etc." as the elements of punishment applied in the instant case as the most authoritative precedent that held that the transaction of goods, etc. is subject to punishment. The summary of the instant case is as follows.

If the multi-level marketing is conducted in a society based on strong connection with Korea, regardless of the quality or value of goods subject to the transaction, multi-level marketing can be changed into money multi-level marketing in which multi-level marketing is conducted without transaction of actual goods or nominal transaction.

In order to prevent damages caused by the irregular operation of multi-level marketing, the Door-to-Door Sales Act amended by Act No. 4896, Jan. 5, 1995, newly established a provision that prohibits monetary transactions without any transaction of goods or services or to punish actual monetary transactions in violation of Article 32(2)1 and Article 45 subparag. 4, by using a multi-level marketing organization or a multi-level marketing organization similar thereto, which is comprised of subscribers who joined gradually, in a phased manner, and by establishing a new provision that prohibits monetary transactions without any transaction of goods or services or to punish such violations. After all, the above content was changed to the location of the provisions up to the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, which was amended by Act No. 6688, Mar. 30, 2002, and was partially modified, and its substantial content was maintained at the same level.

The meaning of ‘multi-level marketing organization' similar to ‘O' is examined. At present, many multi-level marketing organizations do not meet some requirements of the multi-level marketing organization, such as ‘the Dunch', or are virtually avoiding regulations on multi-level marketing under the Door-to-Door Sales Act while carrying out business activities as a multi-level marketing organization without reporting only to door-to-door sales business operators. In other words, even if subordinate salespersons purchase goods from their upper level salespersons, or consumers join the organization as a salesman, there are cases where legal regulations are being caused by using various means of law such as revising and deleting regulations on retail profits or bonuses in the recruitment process or business plan. In addition, considering that multi-level marketing organizations which intentionally omitted or modified some of the requirements of the multi-level marketing organization under the Door-to-Door Sales Act are more needed to regulate multi-level marketing organizations than the general multi-level marketing organization in that they use legal regulations as a means of money investment, and their organization and form are changing and developed, it cannot be said that the legislation of this case is somewhat similar to the concept of "multi-level sales organization" in this case.

(O) On the other hand, the term "act of only conducting a monetary transaction without a transaction of goods, etc. or making a de facto monetary transaction in disguise of a transaction of goods, etc." means a transaction of goods, etc. only without exchange of goods, etc., or a transaction of goods, etc. appears to have been made externally or only to the extent that there is no transaction of goods, etc. or is very small and low, and its substantial purpose is to receive and deliver money. Determination as to whether it constitutes a case is made in concrete cases by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the objective value and appropriateness of the value of the goods, etc. in question, whether the person to whom the goods are supplied used or consumed,

(b)review;

1) The history of the amendment

The Sales Act was enacted on December 31, 1991 by Act No. 4481, and the first amendment was made on March 6, 1993 by Act No. 4541 on March 6, 1993, and as stated in the above reasoning, the elements of this case, which are referred to as the so-called ‘financial multi-level' or ‘financial multi-level', was introduced as a penal provision for the so-called ‘financial multi-level' in the second amendment on January 5, 1995.

2) Not only cannot at all confirm the legislative intent of the legislator who intends to punish a new monetary multiple stages, but also the second amendment of the Act that does not seem to have been the introduction of a new system is decided by the 14th National Assembly (192-1996) to the 14th National Assembly (192-1996). However, there is no fact that the introduction of the elements of a crime cannot be viewed as the introduction of a new system, and it is inevitable to regard it as the alteration of the wording of the existing regulations, and its interpretation should be made within the scope of the existing regulations.

3) Compared interpretation with existing provisions

A person shall be appointed.

Article 18(1) of the Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act limit the scope of application to sales business or service business. Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of Article 18(2) of the Act and Article 18(2) of the Enforcement Decree, the subject is not limited to sales business or service business, and it is not limited to sales organization like the current provision, and the prohibited profits also are listed in unrelated interests to goods or service transaction, and it is not in mind of money. However, the first revised provision does not differ from Article 18(14) of the Act. However, it is difficult to consider that “The other party to whom the recommendation was made is made in soliciting the purchase, etc. of goods” under Article 18 of the Act and Article 10(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act as “the act of selling the goods to the other party with the same recommendation made by the other party in order to increase in the number of sales organizations, etc.” It is also questionable that it is difficult to consider the other party’s recent provision of Article 18 of the Act.

C. Sub-decision

Even after examining the legislative history of the constituent elements applied in the instant case, it is not recognized to regulate the same pecuniary diversity as in the instant case.

4. Conclusion - In comparison with the regulatory method on multi-level marketing, the multi-level marketing itself requires a clear legislative intent called a crime and a new legislation accordingly. According to the current sales law, the act of purely receiving money is defined as a crime that is likely to occur in the process of multi-level marketing, not a multi-level marketing itself, but a multi-level marketing business (Articles 23 and 24). It is confirmed that the act of receiving money was not subject to regulation at all at the time of the enactment of the Protection Act, and there is no legislative intent that intends to regulate it in subsequent amendments. The elements of the instant crime, “organization composed of persons by stages similar thereto”, and only one person receives money directly from the general public, apart from fraud, it is necessary to punish the act of receiving money or services differently from multi-level marketing on the sole basis of the multi-level marketing of goods or services, and there is a need to establish a new criminal law without any reasonable discussion as to the constitutional principles of equity, freedom of business, principle of proportionality, etc.

Therefore, the act of receiving the so-called money in various stages, such as this case, is not prohibited, and thus, it is not guilty (the first sentence of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

Judges Lee Jong-ju

1) As a result of a judgment of innocence, there is no practical benefit to attach the crime sight table (part of the defendant has a practical reason exceeding 1,000 pages).

If it is deemed necessary after the ruling, it may be attached ex officio or at the request of a person related to the case.

2) Attached 2, April 11, 2016, an abstract of the transcript of the briefing session. Three transcripts attached to the attachment are as follows: all the defendants submitted.

v. In the form of the Defendants’ case, concurrent hearings or substantial hearings have been conducted and the Defendants’ case has been committed as a joint hearing.

As the conclusion can not be different, the defendant who did not submit three transcripts by examining the evidence in the court

shall be arranged as ex officio evidence.

3) Attached Form 2, June 2, 2016, the recording of the branch office shall be extracted.

4) Attached 10 June 10, 2016, the recording of the branch office shall be extracted.

5) This promotional material was displayed only on May 13, 2016 at the time of holding 17:00, and it cannot be seen that it is a natural group.

6) A statement of investigation to the effect that H discussed important matters at a branch office meeting is not consistent with a legal testimony.

In addition, prosecution reflects against the prosecution that the reliability is low because H gives testimony favorable to the defendant after the conviction is affirmed;

H- On March 8, 2017, the testimony was made in the second instance after the first instance court was declared, and the statement was made in the recording of the branch office conference.

In Rusna, it is not consistent with the dynamic relationship between the actual conditions of the branch office and H, the branch office and the executive officers of the branch office.

7) In respect of the contents of the ruling or the meaning of the stay of execution, as in the recording materials, the statement to the head of the branch

If the order is given, it is an ambiguous theory to respond to it in consultation with them.

8) In the event that the principal of the high interest rate and the loan is promised to be repaid to the injured party, a person who has particular profit sources and persons to the accused;

In the absence of money, the interest and principal of the previous lessee shall be paid to the money borrowed from the other victims.

Although it was clearly aware that the victims are bound to return. The amount lent by the victims shall be the principal of the loan to the other victims.

(8) The judgment of the court of first instance, and the reasons for conviction are not known.

9) The term "the defendant is the victims for the purpose of deceptioning solely without thinking that the business was conducted from the beginning with respect to the FXM transaction.

of the foreign exchange transaction laws and FXE transactions with respect to overseas transfers, not to receive any money from

Due to the regulations, etc. of the financial authorities in Korea, it is impossible for the Defendant to use the borrowed funds as intended.

D. As a result, it appears to result in the instant crime (19 pages of the judgment of the first instance court)

The decision of the first instance shall be made in the decision of the first instance court with respect to the relevant case by deletion from the decision of the second instance.

The court's decision that the return is temporary in accordance with the binding force of the lower court's decision (Article 8 of the Court Organization Act);

In other words, if a lawyer is a lawyer, he/she abused this circumstance distortedly. He/she is a public trial in the investigation.

It is the reason why the scope of responsibility should be reviewed.

10) “The business itself intended by the Defendant is not profitabilityless or does not operate a business. This content is not that;

I entered. However, there were circumstances in which it was inevitable to do this act because it was absent from the difficulties in overseas remittance.

These contents are required to read."

11) As to the part which "domination" was a temporary measure of disbursement of financial costs. This part is nothing more than this.

The same is likewise applicable to conglomerates, etc., regardless of the form of short-term loans. For this reason, these expenses are diverse financings.

“The cost of cost”

12) The meeting of the branch head shall not be the place at which the meeting is to be discussed and decided at all, but solely H shall give an unilateral instruction;

I would like to explain and advertise. I would like to ask opinions during the Mesical coordinate, but I would like to ask to the United States (or the time when I would like to visit petroleum market in the United States).

I have already been limited to or limited to several options permitted by H, and I have an opinion that is only a secondary matter.

It seems to be aimed at raising the number of points in consideration of a small number of points in the meeting.In the meeting, the meeting is to be held.

his statement at his time shall consist of half-yearly and bathing, part-time, part-time, part-time, part-time, and part-time, if necessary.

The operation of the headquarters may be deprived of opportunities for access to the headquarters unless the security procedures for access to the headquarters are observed;

one central point is closed ex officio in violation of instructions, etc.) that all investments received take place at the branch.

dividend income which cannot be paid for the first time before the defendant's branch offices do this work.

By doing so, the defendant has a difficulty in committing early crimes against the heads of two in-house branches.

(2) As to the entry of the investment funds, the entity that is the entity of the business that only the representative is responsible for the transfer of the investment funds, and the entry of foreign earnings.

In addition, it seems that the head of the branch office was not required to confirm, and it was difficult to find such recommendations.

A business in appearance according to the H's explanation that there is no failure to return or failure to pay profit dividends;

The question is whether it is reasonable to require the applicant to have a question on the project due to the fact that it is the date of the expansion of the interest as stated in this Annex.

is the same.

13) At the National Assembly Draft Information System (fikms.lass.go.go.r/bil) confirm all of the minutes of the plenary session meetings.

However, this part has not been discussed at all.The main contents of the bill's discussion are attached to the attached Form.

14) Article 18 (2) of the Enactment Act.

to join the organization by soliciting that the profit derived from the interest prescribed by the Presidential Decree can be obtained.

shall not be allowed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.