A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who runs a brokerage business for stock trade while operating (State) B.

On June 9, 2011, the Defendant: (a) at the office of the above company located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building D, the victim E, by telephone, holds F’s emergency stocks; and (b) was listed and could pay more than twice the amount of money to the victim E; and (c) was wired KRW 45 million on the same day from the victim who believed such payment to the account of the said company.

However, even though the Defendant did not hold F’s emergency stocks, and did not hold more than twice the shares to pay profits, the Defendant acquired the said money from the damaged party by means of such falsity.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Part of the protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant;

1. A investigation report (Adjustment of Details of use of the G account), investigation report (Submission of suspect additional data);

1. The defendant and defense counsel asserted that they did not deceiving the victim as stated in the above facts charged, because they purchased shares of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) after receiving the remittance of the amount of damage upon the victim’s request for purchase of shares, although they purchased shares of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) after receiving the remittance.

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant would purchase H’s shares to the victim, i.e., the Defendant’s purchase of the shares to the victim:

In other words, the Defendant did not use the money received from the injured party for the actual purchase of H’s shares, and on January 26, 2012, the Defendant promised on January 26, 2012 that the Defendant shall compensate the injured party for the damages in any form agreed by the creditor by February 15, 2012, since he received the payment of the amount of KRW 0 million from the injured party, but

There has been a fact that the Defendant prepared a summary of the terms “,” and the victimized person has remitted the said letter before it was drawn up.