(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.5.4. 선고 2017고합1144 판결

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Cases

Defendant

Prosecutor

Defense Counsel

Applicant for Compensation

Imposition of Judgment

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.5.4. 선고 2017고합1144 판결

가.특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)나.사기다.방문판매등에관한법률위반라.유사수신행위의규제에관한법률위반,배상명령

Cases

A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud)

(b) Fraud;

(d) Violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission;

2017 early 3225, 3226, 3229, 3231, 3232, 3270 compensation order

Defendant

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

Prosecutor

The title (prosecution), Kim Jae-heat, but the trial (trial)

Defense Counsel

Law Firm Gangnam, Attorneys Kim Tae-young, and Hemho (Defendant A)

Attorney Han-han, Master's Name, Nam-gu et al. (for defendant A)

Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Kim Jong-min, Lee Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho (Defendant B, C, F);

G For purposes of

Law Firm Ba, Attorney Cho Jae-jin (for the defendant C),

Law Firm Jeong, Attorney FP (Defendant D)

Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Sohh-soo, and Lee Jong-soo (Defendant D)

Law Firm LLC (LLC), Attorney Park Jong-soo, Attorney Park Jong-chul, and defendant-appellant (defendants)

For E)

Applicant for Compensation

1. H (2017 early 3225);

2. I (Initial 3226)

3. J (2017 early 3229);

4. K (2017 early 3231);

5. L (201727) 3232

M (20 secondss 3270)

Imposition of Judgment

May 4, 2018

Text

Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for 8 years, Defendant D, E, and F, 6 years of imprisonment with prison labor for each of 7 years, Defendant D, and F, and Defendant G 1’s apology 1 of the judgment as to Defendant G) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year and 2 years and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor for each of 1 year and 2 years and 3 months of punishment. Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the prosecution against each of the victims’ N, No. 66 of the Attached Crime List (Defendant C) No. 66, No. 218, the Victim P, No. 233, No. 1181, and the fraud against Defendant F, the prosecution against each of the victims’ R, No. 38, No. 460, No. 638, the Victim T, the Victim No. 908, and the No. 1505 of the judgment against Defendant F is dismissed.

Each application for compensation filed by an applicant is dismissed.

Reasons

Criminal facts)

Criminal Power

On November 4, 2016, Defendant G was sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for six months for a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, which became final and conclusive on November 12, 2016.

Criminal facts

WE is the representative director of X (hereinafter referred to as X); Y is the representative director of X-1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Z"); Y is the director of X-1 and AB, AE, AF, AG, and H are the chief of each X-2, and the director of the last 10th 2th 5th x 10th x 2th x 5th x 5th x 10th x 2th x 10th x 5th x 5th x 5th x 10th x 10th x 2th 5th 201, and Defendant B was the chief of the last 10th x 2th 10th x 5th x 10th x 5th x 16th 201, and Defendant B was the chief of the last x 10th eth 10th 2017.

1. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), fraud;

Defendants conspired with W,YA, AB, AD, AE, AF, and AG in order. From around 2011 to January 201, the Defendants paid a large amount of KRW 1 million to KRW 600,000 per month for 100,000 to KRW 50,000 per month for investment of KRW 10,000 to the following 60,000 per month for an investment of KRW 10,000 to KRW 20,000 per month for investment of KRW 10,000 to KRW 60,00,000,000 per month for investment of KRW 10,000 to KRW 60,00,00,000 per month for investment of KRW 1,50,000 to KRW 360,00 per month for investment of KRW 1,50,000 for investment of KRW 1,100,00,00 per month.

However, in fact, the amount of money used for the purchase of a game machine out of the total amount of money received by the above company was approximately KRW 700 million, and there was no profit accrued from profit-making business as explained to the investors in Korea. It was operated in a way that continuously receives the investment amount of KRW 11 million from a financial multi-level investment scheme and pays profits to senior investors with subordinated investment funds. There was no fact that there was any profit accrued from the above profit-making business, and around January 5, 2017, there was no intention or ability to pay profits to investors by purchasing and operating the game machine out of the investment amount of KRW 183 billion with the investment amount of KRW 5 billion with the above company and assets. Since around January 5, 2017, there was no intention or ability to pay profits to investors by selling and operating the game machine out of the investment amount of KRW 183 billion with the investment amount of KRW 5 billion with the explanation given to investors.

A. Defendant A

The Defendant conspiredd with the above W, etc. from September 6, 201 to January 5, 2017, by deceiving the victims as above, and then, as described in the attached Table Nos. 1 (Defendant A), received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, and received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as the total amount of investment proceeds. The Defendant received 50,037,950,000 won or more per victim AY, etc. (total amount of KRW 99,037,950,000) from the victim AY, etc. as stated in the attached Table Nos. 119 through 3363, and acquired 50,000 won or more per victim A, etc. as the total amount of investment proceeds, 308,608,608,500,000 won or more per victim A, respectively.

B. Defendant B

The Defendant conspiredd with the aforementioned W, etc. from July 27, 201 to January 5, 2017, by deceiving the victims as above, and then, as described in the attached Table Nos. 1, the Defendant received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, and received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds. The Defendant received 50,037,950,000 won or more per victim A, etc. (the sum of 99,037,950,000 won) from the victim A, etc. as investment proceeds, respectively, and received 119 to 3366, an amount of less than 50,000 won per victim A, etc. (the sum of 262,652,580,000 won) under the name of 365,505,505,000 investment proceeds, respectively.

C. Defendant C

In collusion with the above W, etc. from April 201 to March 11, 2016, the Defendant deceivings the victims as above, and was so obtained from the victim BA, etc. as to the amount of not less than KRW 500 million to less than KRW 5 billion per victim (total amount of KRW 40,370,220,000) from the victim 1 through 45 as stated in the annexed crime List (Defendant C) No. 1 through 45, and acquired the total amount of less than KRW 50,000 per victim 2, etc. as investment money, and acquired the amount of less than KRW 46 through 65, 67 through 217, 219 through 232, 234 through 1180, 1182 through 1704 from the victim B, etc. as to the total amount of KRW 132,49,300,000 per victim 1,207,2500

D. Defendant D

In collusion with the above W, etc. from April 9, 201 to August 31, 2015, the Defendant deceivings the victim as above, and then, as described in the attached list of crimes (Defendant D) Nos. 1 to 24 from the victim BC, etc., the Defendant acquired an amount of not less than KRW 500 million to less than five billion per victim (total amount of KRW 19,695,940,000) as investment money, and acquired an amount of less than KRW 500 million per victim from BD, etc. (total of KRW 66,962,50,50,000) as investment money, as described in Nos. 25 to 1031, respectively, and acquired an amount of less than KRW 86,658,490,000 per victim from the victim BD, etc. as investment money.

E. Defendant E

In collusion with the above W, from December 4, 2013 to January 5, 2017, the Defendant enticed victims as above, and received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment proceeds, such as the judgment No. 1 of conviction No. 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX, and as described in No. 2 to 117, the Defendant received 50,000 to 5 billion won per victim AY, etc. (total amount of KRW 97,127,250,000) from the victim AY, etc. as investment proceeds. As described in No. 118 through 3368, the Defendant acquired 50,000 won or more per victim AZ from the victim A, etc. (total amount of KRW 262,07,98,00,000,000).

F. Defendant F

In collusion with the above W, etc. from April 201 to December 2015, the Defendant deceivings victims as above, and thereafter, as described in the attached Table Nos. 1 to 25, the Defendant received from the victim BA, etc. an amount of not less than 50 million won to less than 5 billion won per capita (total amount of 24,683,340,000 won) from the victim BA, etc. as an investment deposit, and received the amount of less than 5 billion won per capita (total amount of 26 through 37, 39 through 459, 461 through 637, 639 through 907, 909 through 1104, 1106 through 1419, 106 through 306, 300, 3006, 63050, 6306, 6050, 6300).

G, Defendant G

1) The Defendant, in collusion with the above W, etc. from April 1, 2014 to November 11, 2016, by deceiving the victims as above, and by deceiving them from the victim from the victim BF, etc., as described in the attached Table of Crimes (Defendant G) Nos. 1 to 37, obtained an amount of not less than KRW 500,000 to less than KRW 5 billion per victim BF, etc. (total amount of KRW 29,346,200,00) from the victim BF, etc., and obtained an amount of less than KRW 50,000 per victim from the victim B, etc. (total of KRW 146,05,240,000) as investment money, respectively, and acquired an amount of KRW 175,401,400,000 per victim from the victim B, etc. as described in the attached Table Nos. 38 to 2085.

2) In collusion with the above W, etc. from April 1, 2014 to January 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) induced victims as above; (b) received 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment money; and (c) obtained 50 million to 5 billion won or more per victim AY, etc. (total 66,722,350,000 won) from the victim A, etc. as described in No. 2166 to 3368; (d) obtained 6,875,00,000 won or more from the victim AX as investment money; and (e) obtained 50,000 won or more per victim A, etc. under the pretext of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc., 2084,708,7084,781, and 3368, respectively.

No one shall engage in money transactions using a similar organization in multi-stage to conduct money transactions without conducting any transactions of goods, etc. or concluding a contract for sales of goods, etc. with a salesperson in pretending the transactions of goods, etc., and only pay bonuses without any justifiable ground, and no one shall engage in money transactions with an unspecified number of unspecified persons for the purpose of making payment of the total amount of investments or the amount in excess thereof in the future without obtaining authorization or permission, making registration, reporting, etc.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to do so with the above W, and without obtaining the authorization or permission of the competent authorities. At the time and place specified in the above Paragraph (1) above, the Defendants introduced them as sales commission (sales commission) if they introduced other persons after becoming X salespersons to pay 11 million won per unit for the game machine. The Defendants received KRW 500,000 won for themselves according to their sales commission as sales commission, and the head of the division (director) receives KRW 200,000 won for 10,000 won for 60,000 won for 10,000 won for 60,000 won for 10,000 won for 6,000 won for 10,000 won for 6,000 won for 1,000 won for 6,000 won for 1,000 won for 6,000 won for 1,0000 won for 6,000 won for 1,000 won for 1.

A. Defendant A received total of KRW 368,528,680,000 from many victims as indicated in the separate crime sight table (Defendant A) Nos. 1 through 3363 from September 6, 2011 to January 5, 2017;

B. Defendant B received total amount of KRW 368,565,530,000 from many victims as indicated in [Attachment B] Nos. 1 through 3366 from July 27, 2011 to January 5, 2017;

C. From April 201 to March 11, 2016, Defendant C received total of KRW 173,218,150,000 from many victims as indicated in [Attachment C] Nos. 1 to 1704.

D. Defendant D received total amount of KRW 86,658,490,000 from many victims as indicated in [Attachment D] Nos. 1 through 1031 from April 9, 201 to August 31, 2015;

E. From December 1, 2013 to January 5, 2017, Defendant E received total of KRW 366,076,230,000 from many victims, as indicated in the annexed crime sight table (Defendant E) Nos. 1 to 3368;

F. From April 201 to December 2015, Defendant F received total of KRW 130,975,380,000 from many victims as indicated in the crime sight table (Defendant F) Nos. 1 to 1419, and Defendant G received total of KRW 363,879,580,000 from many victims from April 1, 201 to January 5, 2017, as indicated in the separate crime sight table Nos. 1 to 3368 (Defendant G).

Therefore, the Defendants in collusion with the above W, etc., and using a multi-level similar organization.

After concluding a contract for the sale of goods, etc. with the salesperson in most of the transaction, the bonus was paid without the supply of the corresponding goods, etc. without any justifiable reason, and the fund-raising business was conducted without any justifiable reason.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A and E's respective legal statements 1. The defendant B, C, D, F, and G's respective legal statements; 1. The defendant A's statement in the third trial records

1. Entry of each part of the defendant B, C, D, F, and G in the first preparatory hearing record, and the statement of defendant E in the third preparatory hearing record;

1. Each legal statement of the witness AF, BG, AG, and BH;

1. Each legal statement of the witness BI, BJ, BK, BL, and BM (with respect to the defendants except the defendants F, part of the witness BI, BJ, BK, BK, BL and BM in the 9th trial record)

1. Statements made by witnesses A and Y in the second trial records;

1. Statements of witnesses W and AC in the third protocol of trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses AH, AE, AB, and B in the fifth trial records;

1. Some statements among the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants are written by the prosecution

1. Some statements made in a copy of each protocol of examination of prosecution against AF, AG, AH, AA, C, AE, AD, AB, Y, W, and B;

1. Some statements made by the prosecution about Y;

1. Some statements in the police interrogation protocol regarding Defendant D

1. Some statements in the police interrogation protocol of the defendant A, G, F, B, C, and E (limited to the defendant A, D, and E);

1. AH, BI, AD, BO, AB, BH, BP, Q, AF, BG, B, AG, BR, B, B, A, B, B, B, A, B, C, B, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, CE, C, C, C, C, CF, C, C, C, C, CF, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, C, and Y

1. Each police record statement made by the police with respect to BK, AW, BJ, AU, AV, CB, Z, AO, CU, Q, AS, and DB;

1. DC, D, D, DE, DF, DG, DH, DI, DJ, DK, DK, DM, DM, AU, AV, Q Q, DNA, DD, DP, Q, DP, DR, DSS, DSS, DTR, DTS, DDD, DV, DY, DY, EB, EEC, EEC, EEC, EEC, EEC, EEC, EF, EF, EF, EF, EF, EG, EH, EM, ES, BP, BP, BP, DP, AO, AO, AO, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES, ES2, ES2, ES2, ES, ES, ES2, ES, ES,

1. A copy of the protocol of examination of witness, as examined by the Seoul Central District Court, 2017 and 8444 of each Seoul Central District Court on the AU,N, CZ, DI, EZ, FAO, FAO, DJ, DB, DD, BK, Q Q, Q Q, FC, FC, DK, AP, AP, FE, FG, FG, FG, FJ, FJ, BJ, BV, BV, BV, BU, BU, BW, BW, BW, BH, BH, BN, Y, Y, Y, Y, W, C, C, AB, AB, AC, AD, AE, AE, AE, AF, AF, BG, and AH;

1. ㈜Z 대리 직무교육 자료, FJ 위탁 직무교육 자료, 직급자들의 수당내역(직급수당+판 매수당), X주주명부, 매월 수수료(수익금)지급표(2009. 9.부터 2017. 12.까지), X의 매출내역, 수당내역, 위탁수수료, 회원리스트 CD 1매, ㈜X 2017년 1월 4일 ~ 1월 5일 선수금 내역, 첨부자료(위탁관리계약서), 수사(내사)의뢰서, 관련자료(제보서, 고발장), 위탁관리계약서, 투자금거래내역서, 통장사본, 녹취록, 각 고소장, 첨부자료 (범죄일람표, 소송기록, 등기사항전부증명서, 녹취록), 진정서

1. The Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gohap24, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gohap844, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gohap845, the Gangnam Branch Court Decision 2016Gohap55, the Supreme Court Decision 2016Gohap55, the Supreme Court Decision and the Court Decision and the Court Decision,

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A, B, E, and G: Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of limited term of imprisonment, including frauds against AX), Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s fraud with the total amount of defrauded money exceeds 500 million won but less than 5 billion won). Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (referring to each victim’s fraud with each victim’s total sum of defrauded money is less than 500 million won), Article 58(1)4 and Article 24(1)1(b) of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the de facto imprisonment with prison labor, selective reception of money and selective reception of money), Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant C, D, and F: Each of the Defendants C, D, and F: Article 3(1)2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, Article 347(1), and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s fraud with the total amount of defrauded money of at least 500 million won but less than 5 billion won for each victim), Articles 347(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (including each victim’s fraud with respect to each fraud with the total amount of defrauded money of less than 500 million won) of the Criminal Act, Articles 58(1)4 and 24(1)1(b) of the latter part of Article 58(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales, etc. Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with labor, referring to a de facto monetary transaction), Articles 6(1) and 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the

1. Handling concurrent crimes and legal mitigation;

Defendant G: The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 39(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, and Article 55(1)3-1 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission, and between violations of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A, B, and E: Each of the crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act against the victim AX with the largest penalty specified in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud);

(b) Defendant C and F: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (limited to the amount of concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the victim AX with the largest punishment);

(c) Defendant D: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (limited to concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the FK of the largest victim who has been punished);

(d) Defendant G: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Article 1-g) of the Criminal Act (Article 1-g) and Article 50 (Article 1-g) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Article 1-2 of the Decree on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, among the concurrent crimes with punishment provided for in the crime of violation (Fraud) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes, among the crimes of Article 1-2 of the Decree on the AX of Specific Economic Crimes, which

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant G: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., favorable circumstances for sentencing following the following)

1. Dismissal of application for compensation;

Article 32(1)3 and (2), and Article 25(3)3 and 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 32(1)3 and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Article 25(3)3 and 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant B, C, F, G and defense counsel

1) As to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), and fraud

A) The Defendants explained to the victims the contents of the business in X and Z (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”) known to them from W andY, and explained that there was no false explanation different from the content known to them, nor did they specify the monthly amount of the monthly income paid to the victims or guarantee the minimum amount of the monthly income, and that there may change the profits paid according to the business performance in the United States. Thus, no deception was made against the victims.

B) As the number of the games sold in the Republic of Korea, the Defendants believed W and Y horses to be installed and operated in the U.S. and confirmed that the pertinent business was being operated normally in the U.S. Tech, and there were no circumstances to suspect that there were some problems in the above business, they were merely those belonging to W and Y, and there was no intention to acquire money from the victims as investment money.

C) The scope of the Defendants’ liability should be limited to each headquarters to which the Defendants belong.

2) As to the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act

The Defendants had actually worked for the customers as they thought that they would sell the game machine, and there was no intention for the Defendants to only engage in money transactions without trading goods, etc. or to engage in money transactions only by pretending to trade goods, etc. using a multi-level similar organization.

3) As to the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission

The Defendants did not agree to guarantee principal because they explained the fact that the amount of proceeds is changed according to the U.S. business situation and that the amount of proceeds may not be reduced or paid. Moreover, the Defendants believed the instant business structure as a transaction of goods involving the transfer of ownership and did not mean that the transaction of goods was the most financial transaction. Therefore, the Defendants did not intend to receive money without delay.

B. Defendant D and defense counsel

1) There is no intention to commit the crime of deception and deception (which is the same purport as the argument of the above defendant B, C, F, G and defense counsel).

2) Of the facts constituting the Defendant D’s criminal facts, the portion of the sales to the friendly relatives of the accomplices is not recognized as deception, or the provisions on relative donation should be applied.

3) Defendant D filed a report on the principal offender W and Y’s criminal facts, and Defendant D’s punishment should be reduced or exempted as he/she constitutes a whistleblower under the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act.

C. Defendant E and counsel

Since Defendant E was merely a state officer (general seller) by October 2013, Defendant E does not constitute a public offering relationship until the said time.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the premise - Non-conformity, etc. of the instant project

1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the instant project is a typical multi-level financial fraud in which W andY attempted to receive investment from investors on the ground that W andY actually intended to link the game machine sales business in Korea with the U.S. game room business in the form of the U.S. game room business. As such, the instant project is a typical multi-level financial fraud in which new investors pay profits to existing investors.

① On November 24, 2009, W.Y established FM (hereinafter “FM”) and sold health food, such as FN and FO, and commenced a game machine sales business. On January 11, 201, W. L. H. established Z around September 2015 after the company’s trade name was changed to X and closed its business (the date of establishment on the register of Z was March 19, 2015) and suspended the game machine sales business after being discovered to an investigation agency on January 5, 2017. ② AX and Z sold the game machine to investors (the most substantially invested company after having been made an investment). On January 11, 201, the term of the contract was terminated by entrusting investors with the operation of the game machine sales business under the name of FF and the entrusted management contract between investors and investors in the U.S. (the term of the contract was terminated for three years).

③ According to the above contract, X and Z remitted the proceeds received from investors in the United States to the FJ of the United States, and the FJ shall pay the proceeds from purchasing the game machine in the United States and operating the game site to X and Z. In fact, there was no difference between the United States and the Republic of Korea as well as between the United States and the Republic of Korea, by sending the proceeds from purchasing the game machine in the United States and operating the game site to the X and Z in the Republic of Korea.

④ Along with the business of linking X and Z with the U.S. FJ, there was no business operated by itself. Therefore, in fact, the said business used the money received from investors in the game as revenue payment to the existing investors and expenses for the operation of the company, etc., and the FJ also used the same amount of profit paid by the operation of the game machine owned by itself in Korea regardless of the sale of the game machine in Korea, and the said game machine can be additionally purchased only within the scope of its profit.

⑤ As X and Z, the game machine sales business of the Republic of Korea and the U.S. game room business can not be linked at all, and the Korean business itself does not have any profit, the amount of investment received, resulting in the increase in the burden of paying profits and allowances to the previous investors. However, W/Y operated by the said company was continuously selling the game machine as if the Korean game machine sales and the U.S. game room business were substantially linked.

2) The sales revenue and allowances of the instant project

① The game machine was sold in KRW 1,80,000 (in the beginning, KRW 8,00,000,000 from around 2013 to around 9,000, and KRW 11,000 from around 2015 to around 36 months) and paid to investors a monthly amount of KRW 50,00 or KRW 60,000 per month as profits. Ultimately, during the three-year period, the game machine was paid as profits (entrusted management commission). Ultimately, it would be difficult to continue operating the business of this case, barring considerable amount of profits, considering the company’s own profits and expenses. In short, it would be difficult to ensure that the business of this case would continue operating the business of this case.

② A class structure consisting of the chief of the headquarters, the Minister, the bureau chief, the office chief, and the head of the bureau (in addition to the class members, there was a side business shop other than the class members), and Z was composed of the chief of the headquarters, the chief of the division, the director, the representative, and the chief. If the above class members sell one game machine, X and Z paid KRW 500,000 for sales allowances to the class members who sold the game machine. X and Z paid sales allowances according to the class other than sales allowances. In X, X and Z paid 50,000 won to the chief of the office, 20,000 won to the chief of the bureau, 10,000 won to the chief of the headquarters, and 10,000 won to the chief of the headquarters, 50,000 won to the representative representative, and 100,000 won to the head of the headquarters, respectively.

(3) ZX paid fixed allowances according to the class other than sales allowances and sales support. In other words, X paid fixed allowances of KRW 2 million to the chief of the headquarters every month, KRW 1.5 million to the chief of the bureau, KRW 1.2 million to the chief of the bureau, and KRW 800,000 to the chief of the bureau, and KRW 10% of the proceeds of the game machine directly sold, while paying work allowances of KRW 3 million to the chief of the headquarters every month, after eliminating the work allowances, X paid fixed allowances of KRW 3 million to the chief of the headquarters, KRW 2 million to the chief of the bureau, and KRW 80,000 to the chief of the bureau, and Z also paid the same amount as above as fixed allowances.

④ Ultimately, X and Z sold one game machine amounting to KRW 11,00,000,000,000,000 for sales commission and sales commission, etc. Accordingly, X and Z paid an amount equivalent to approximately KRW 35.1 billion as sales commission, KRW 20 billion as sales commission, KRW 5.1 billion as sales commission, KRW 5.1 billion as sales commission, and KRW 55.1 billion as sales commission received from investors, regardless of the actual performance of the project (Evidence No. 60).

3) Abnormal operating methods and explanation of the instant project

① He explained that no direct expression is made that “the principal or revenue of the Plaintiff shall be guaranteed to the investors” through education and presentation of the project, and that no direct expression is made to the effect that the profits are fixed. However, under the emphasizes that the profits are not paid at least KRW 500,000 per month or KRW 600,000 per month, even if the profits are paid less than the profits due to natural disasters, etc., even if the profits are paid less than the profits due to natural disasters, etc., the sales clerks have been guaranteed a certain amount of profits, and in fact, the sales clerks have been given a certain amount of profits by explaining such contents to the investors. Nevertheless, the FJ agreed on the special terms of Article 12 of the consignment management contract entered into with the investors, such as the payment of the profits, and the payment of the principal to the investors at the average return rate as determined by the FJ. The average return on profits is confirmed to be changed, and even if the sales clerks do not have a direct explanation as to whether they are sold or sold, it does not constitute a violation of laws or regulations.

② Around 2016, X and Z prevented cellular phone or tape recorder from possessing the game machine, and even after purchasing the game machine, it was possible to listen to the project presentation. In addition, X and Z prevented salespersons or job-grades from dividing conversationss between other headquarterss, and prevented them from talking to other door-to-door sales business operators, etc., and even if the salesperson withdrawss more than KRW 20 million to investors, he reported to the Financial Supervisory Service, and explained the salesperson to explain in advance that “the seal delivery package” is called “the check delivery package” (Evidence No. 71). In X, transactions such as payment of purchase price and receipt of profits, etc. were possible through the account, but after moving to Z, the investor made transactions only with the current gold and check.

③ At the accounting office operated by Defendant A and BJ, W and Y installed fingerprint recognition devices to strictly limit access by their class members except W andY, and have access to the accounting office only upon permission by W,Y, or the accounting department. On the other hand, Defendant A and BJ operated the accounting office by ordering them not to exchange with salespersons.

① Such a method of business operation seems to be difficult to take place in a general company, and at least as a salesperson or position who works for the above company is likely to doubt whether the instant project is normally operated solely with such abnormal and closed method of business (in practice, a number of persons among salespersons or class members expressed a question about the method of operating the instant project).

4) Progress of the relevant case

① From the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), etc. of W andY, Y was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and W was sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and the case was pending in the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2018No483).

② In the case of the violation of the Act on the AA (Management Director), AB (Director 2 of the Final Class), AC (Director 3 Headquarters), AD (Director 1 of the Final Class), AE (Director 1 of the Final Class), AF (Director 5 of the Headquarters 5 of the Final Class), AG (Director 5 of the Headquarters 5 of the Final Class), AH (Director 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) against the same game machine sales in the case, AA, AB, AC (Director 2 of the Seoul Central District Court), A had been convicted of any criminal act related to the sale of the same game machine sales in the case, and AA, A, AB, AC was sentenced to 7 years of imprisonment, AD, AE, AF, AG, and H, and the appeal also is pending (Seoul High Court 2018-686).

B. Determination on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and fraud

1) Determination on deception

As seen earlier, X and Z did not receive money from investors as the purchase price for the game machine and did not transfer it to the FJ of the United States, and the FJ did not transfer the proceeds from the operation of the game machine to X and Z. Thus, the project of this case constitutes a so-called return type financial fraud that is paid to the existing investors with the proceeds from the new investors. Nevertheless, Defendant B, C, D, F, G (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants for convenience”) can obtain considerable profits by remitting the funds paid by investors to the United States for the purchase price for the game machine and operating the game machine and using them as the purchase price for the game machine. It is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ above act constitutes a fraudulent act regardless of whether the amount of the funds paid to investors in the United States was specified or not, and as long as they did not directly mislead the investors into a fraudulent act regardless of the amount of the funds paid to the investors in the United States, the act of the Defendants did not constitute a fraudulent act in relation to the game machine.

2) Determination on the criminal intent of defraudation

A) Legal principles

The willful negligence as a subjective element of a crime must be aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, there should be an internal intent to accept the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an offender permitted the possibility of occurrence of a crime should be determined based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act that was externally revealed and the situation of an act, without depending on the statement of the offender, in light of how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5075, Sept. 10, 2009).

B) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants received investment money by soliciting investors to make an investment in a conclusive or at least dolusent manner while recognizing the situation that it is difficult for them to pay the proceeds to investors in collusion with W, Y, and Y, as well as that it is difficult for them to pay the proceeds to investors as agreed upon by the agreement, and that it would be unable to pay the principal of the investment money if a certain level of step has passed. Therefore, the Defendants’ intent to commit fraud can be sufficiently recognized.

① As seen earlier, X and Z received money from investors as the purchase price for the game machine, with the exception of KRW 1 billion for the initial investment, and did not transfer it to the FJ of the United States, and the FJ also did not transfer the proceeds of the game machine operation business to X and Z. In the absence of money between the United States and Korea, if the business was conducted in such a way as to pay the investors a high rate of profit and pay them an allowance in an amount of money to the salespersons and class, Mae would have no choice but to raise the funds of X and Z as long as the business was conducted in such a way as to pay them a considerable amount of money to the salespersons and class.

② Although X and Z paid monthly profits to investors should be calculated on the basis of monthly profits from the game machine businesses operated by the FJ, X and Z paid almost fixed amount of profits without going through these processes. In addition, X and Z did not present specific data to investors regarding the number of U.S. games, the number of game instruments, details of sales, or amount of profits.

③ Even if the FJ’s game room business was operated normally, as seen earlier, X and Z paid investors earnings and allowances and benefits to their class and to their class employees, while the company’s operating expenses incurred a high amount of profits from the instant business. This was at a level that the ordinary business could not have been expected.

④ Y was engaged in the previous ice sales business, and FM was a company that sells health food, such as FN and FO, and W/Y did not have any special business experience or ability related to the game machine operation business. To continue to sell the game machine, X and Z did not have any specific plan such as new establishment of the game site in the United States and expansion of the installation of the game machine.

(6) Defendants B, C, D, and E, as the representatives of each head office or head office, have overall control over each headquarters’s business and managed subordinate officers and sales officers. Defendants F and G, as the heads of the headquarters or the head of the headquarters, managed subordinate officers and sales officers by assisting the head of the headquarters, and accordingly, received sales allowances or sales subsidies for their game machine sales or subordinate officers and sellers. The duties of the head of the headquarters or head of the headquarters were not required to have special capacity or experience, but to be arbitrarily granted or elevated by anyone, taking into account the number of game machine purchases, sales performance, personality, etc. The Defendants were paid high class officers regardless of their own ability, and thus, received high-ranking allowances, etc. for which they exceeded ordinary levels over a long time.

⑥ At around 2012, W stated that there was a statement that certain classes of shareholders would purchase the machinery from the United States and operate it as an alternative alternative to pay profits from the sale proceeds coming from the United States and entered the Republic of Korea. On the fact that YDo offset is conducted, W stated that there was an explanation that if you would know the fact that Ydo offset is conducted, I would like to explain the content of offset, and if there are investors with Y's suspicions, I would like to explain the content of offset. And, in Korea, W and Y's assertion would eventually pay profits from the purchase proceeds of the game machine received from investors to the existing investors, which is the same meaning as so-called so-called â€˜competiment.'

(1) No. 6 of the U.S. Report No. 1 and No. 1 of the U.S. Report No. 6 of the U.S. Report No. 1 and No. 1 of the U.S. Report No. 6 of the U.S. Report No. 7 of the U.S. Report No. 1 and No. 1 of the U.S. Report No. 6 of the U.S. Report No. 1 and No. 1 of the U.S. Report No. 6 of the U.S. Report No. 7 of the U.S. Report No. 1 of the U.S. Report No. 6 of the U.S. Report No. 1 of the U.S. Report No. 7 of the U.S. Report No. 6 of the U.S. Report No.

8) Many of the class and investors asked the company or superior class of the company about whether the company is normally operating with a question about the business structure of X and Z, and X and Z used the company or superior class of the company. The defendant D set away from the time of the change to X to Z. The above defendant also changed the office location while changing WW/Y, etc., changed the representative director, and stated that the change of the name of the shares and contract of the existing company was an important factor that caused the company to be doubtful about the company's business structure due to a sudden increase in the number of game instruments sales.

9) The Defendants asserted that the horses were believed in W and Y as they were. However, considering the abnormal business methods of X and Z, excessive fee and allowance payment structure of the Defendants, the Defendants’ class and service period of the above companies, the amount of sales allowance and business subsidy received by the Defendants, and the details of specific participation in the instant projects, the Defendants could have sufficiently known that the instant business was not operated normally. Nevertheless, the Defendants’ continued participation in the sales of X and Z games was merely an intentional and external outcome in order to continuously obtain profits, such as high-amount allowances that the Defendants obtained as job-class employees.

① The Defendants asserted that the game machine business was normally carried out in the U.S. Tex State by visiting the game machine installed in X and Z through the U.S. Tex State, and that W and Y horses were more believed. However, in light of the number and size of the game machine buyers who visited and confirmed by the Defendants, and the number of the game machine purchase amount, etc., it seems that the Defendants were merely to have the game machine users visit the game room only before most of business hours or to have them view only formally in the process of the game machine operation, and that the above circumstances alone alone are insufficient. As such, the circumstances in which the Defendants participated in the game machine do not interfere with the Defendants’ recognition of the crime of deception (in so doing, it seems that X and X are plans for the unity and cooperation of the game machine owners and the salespersons).

3) Determination on the establishment and period of a public recruitment relationship by the Defendant

A) Legal principles

In relation to co-offenders who are engaged in a crime by more than two persons, a public conspiracy is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly, the public conspiracy is established between several persons, and it is necessary to establish such conspiracys or conspiracys, and it is necessary to prove it. However, in a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent while recognizing the facts directly involved in the act of the conspiracy, the facts constituting such subjective elements should be proven by the method of proving indirect facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent, and what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the situation of the fact by the close observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do746, Feb. 27, 2004).

B) As to Defendant B, C, and D

(1) 공모관계 성립 시점에 대하여 이 사건 범행의 주범인 Y는, 피고인 C, D는 초기 멤버이고 이들과 상의하여 이 사건 사업의 구조와 직급 구조 등을 함께 만들었고 돌려막기 구조에 대하여도 많은 이야기를 나눴기 때문에 돌려막기 방식의 이 사건 사업 구조에 대하여 당연히 알고 있었을 것이고 피고인 B 또한 피고인 C보다도 먼저 근무했기 때문에 이 사건 사업 구조를 알고 있었을 것이라는 취지로 진술하였고, AA, BJ 등 임직원이나 초기 직급자들 또한 위 피고인들의 근무시기에 관하여 위와 비슷한 취지로 진술하였는바, 피고인 B, C, D는 X 초기부터 사업에 관여하여 이 사건 사업의 실체에 대하여 상당한 정도로 알고 있었던 것으로 보이므로, 피고인 B, C, D는 판매원 또는 직급자로서 관여한 이 사건 사업의 초기 시점부터 이 사건 범행에 대한 공모관계를 충분히 인정할 수 있다.

(2) Specific time and time of the establishment of a public contest;

① Defendant B was the chief of the headquarters around April 2013, and was involved in brain operation around April 2014, and thus, there was a conspiracy. However, Defendant B, who was an employee in charge of accounting, stated that Defendant B was a person in the position at which he was receiving fixed benefits from the beginning, and that Defendant B was a person in the position of Defendant B because AA was entering X around April 201. In addition, Defendant B’s wife, who was a dependent of Defendant B, stated that “I would have been in the position of Defendant B, who was in charge of brain operation around April 2014, and Y would have been in charge of banking business and fee work” (No. 482-9). It stated that Defendant B’s role as the chief of the headquarters of evidence (No. 482-9) was the middle of the role of Defendant B as Defendant B.

In full view of the facts that it is difficult to see that Defendant B was the head of the honorary headquarters in 2016, the fact that Defendant B worked in the Z as the head of the honorary headquarters in 2016, and the fact that Defendant B continuously sold the game machine under Defendant B’s name in 2015 and around 2016, Defendant B’s public contest relation may be recognized from July 27, 201 to January 5, 201 when the sale of the game machine was completed.

② The Defendant C appears to have been involved as the head of the headquarters from April 201 to April 6, 201, when he was prosecuted for himself in the instant case. As such, the conspiracy relation is acknowledged from April 201 to March 11, 201.

③ Defendant D also appears to have already participated in the instant crime as a class member before the period of his indictment was charged with him. As such, there is a conspiracy between April 9, 201 and August 31, 2015, which is the time of withdrawal from office.

C) As to Defendant E, F, and G

(1) At the time of the public offering, Defendants E, F, and G were reasonably aware of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court. ① Defendants F, May 1, 2010, Defendant G, who purchased the game machine from X for a considerable period of time, became a salesperson and again became a salesperson through the service of a certain period of time. In light of such facts, Defendant E, F, and G were deemed to have been aware of the structure and substance of the instant business at least at least at least at the time of their class, ② The amount of money received to Z and X was significantly increased in the amount of money received in addition to the instant sales allowance to be received in the class 2 of the company, ③ the head of the headquarters, the head of the headquarters, the head of G, and the head of the headquarters, and the head of the headquarters who sold the game machine from the point of time on which Defendants E, F, and G would have been aware of the fact that there was an excessive increase in the amount of money received in the instant category of the company’s sales allowance.

(2) Defendant E recognizes the fact that he became the chief of office around November 2013. Defendant E, as at the time when he became the chief of office, can recognize a public contest relationship from December 1, 2013 to January 5, 2017, which is most favorable to the principal. Accordingly, Defendant E and the defense counsel’s assertion on this part is with merit.

② Defendant F, at around April 2012, retired from office around September 2015, asserts that there exists a public contest relationship only for the aforementioned period. However, around April 201, AA made a statement that Defendant F was a person of class at the time of entry, Defendant F was also a person of class at the time of entry in September 2011, and Defendant F’s father was working until December 2015, and Defendant F’s father was managing his father’s customers from around December 2016. Accordingly, Defendant F can be recognized as a public contest relationship from April 201 to December 31, 2015.

③ Defendant G may be recognized as a public contest relationship between April 1, 2014 and January 5, 2017, when the Z was the chief of office in March 2014 (Evidence No. 460-3), and Defendant G may be acknowledged as a public contest relationship from April 1, 2014 to January 5, 2017, which is most favorable to the principal.

4) As to whether the scope of joint principal liability is limited to the Defendants’ headquarters to which they belong

In light of the circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, in the management of the members of X and Z and the payment of allowances, etc., each headquarters to which the Defendants belong, was not operated independently. Rather, the operation of the headquarters and all other headquarters under the control and management of X and Z was performed as a whole, and the project explanation meeting for investors took place as a whole for the whole participants without classifying this section, and the project explanation meeting for investors was conducted as a whole for the whole participants, and the other headquarters belonging to the other headquarters, AB (2 headquarters), AD (1 headquarters), AH (5 headquarters), etc. were explained in the above project explanation meeting as part of instructors, the Defendants are jointly liable for the whole sales of X and Z. Accordingly, the Defendants and the defense counsel are not acceptable.

5) As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ act constitutes deception as long as they were invested in the same manner as stated above, even if they were to have an accomplice’s relative relationship with the victims, by stating that the Defendants would normally operate the X and Z business and make high profits, and that such act constitutes deception. Furthermore, according to Articles 354 and 328(3) of the Criminal Act, the provisions of relative precedent does not apply to the accomplice who has no status relationship. As such, Defendant D and the attorney’s above assertion to the effect that the Defendants are not responsible for the sales of the friendship of other accomplices. Determination on the violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, etc. is denied.

As seen earlier, even if the head of the headquarters, the head of the division, the head of the division, the agent, and the head of the city in X and Z have multi-level classes systems, such as the head of the headquarters, and even if there were no money between the Republic of Korea and the United States, they received the sales proceeds of the game machine from investors in the United States as pretended to be used for the purchase of the game machine in the United States, and received the sales proceeds of the game machine from investors, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants conspired with W, etc. in collusion with W, to only conduct a monetary transaction without any transaction of goods, etc. or to conduct only a de facto monetary transaction

D. Determination on a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission

1) Legal principles

Article 3 of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission or Approval under the related Acts and subordinate statutes provides that "the act of importing money by promising to pay an amount of money in full or an amount exceeding it to the future" as one of the acts of receiving money without permission. Thus, the legislative intent of regulating fund-raising business without permission or approval under the related Acts and subordinate statutes is to protect good customers and establish a sound financial order. Thus, in light of the legislative intent and the meaning of the term "contribution" under the above provisions, it is difficult to regard the revenue of the fund which is mediating the transaction of the product as the revenue, and it can be deemed as an act of receiving money without permission under the above Acts and subordinate statutes only if it is merely the fact that the revenue of the fund is difficult to regard it as the revenue of the fund, and it can be deemed as the act of receiving money without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do7470, Jan. 25, 2007).

2) Determination

As seen earlier, while emphasizing that the profits from the investors are not paid at KRW 50,00 or KRW 600,000 per month to the investors on the pretext of the purchase price for the game machine, the Defendants have agreed to guarantee the above investment amount of KRW 11,00,000,00 and additional profits, even if they are paid less profits due to natural disasters, etc., the period for the payment of the profits would be extended, and thus, the Defendants’ act is deemed to be an act of fund-raising under the above Act. Furthermore, the Defendants’ act cannot be deemed to have sold in Korea in response to the game machine in the United States, and the ownership of the game machine was pretended to be traded without changing the ownership of the game machine, and the Defendants’ act of fund-raising constitutes an act of fund-raising without changing the ownership of the game machine. Accordingly, the Defendants’ and the aforementioned attorneys’ assertion is not acceptable.

E. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court on the claim that a whistleblower is a public interest reporter under the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act, it is recognized that Defendant D provided the beginning of an investigation into W/Y as a principal offender to an investigation agency through the FP by an attorney-at-law. Meanwhile, Article 8(1) of the Protection of Public Interest Reporters Act provides that “Any person who intends to report the public interest shall submit to an investigation agency, etc., along with the name, resident registration number, address and contact details of a public interest reporter, ② a person who infringes on the public interest, ③ a person who infringes on the public interest, ③ a report stating the purpose and reason of the public interest report, and evidence of infringement on the public interest along with a report stating the purport and reason of the public interest report,” and Article 8(2) provides that “A person may make an oral report in extenuating circumstances where it is impossible to recognize that Defendant D made a public interest report in the form of a written report or there are special circumstances where it is impossible to submit a report. Furthermore, it is difficult to deem that the grounds for reduction or exemption of punishment should not necessarily be mitigated.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant D and his defense counsel's above assertion.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

(a) Defendant A, B, and E: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years nor more than 45 years;

(b) Defendant C, D, and F: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years but not more than 45 years. Defendant G

1) Crimes of Article 1-1 (g) of the judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 9 months but not more than 11 years and not more than 3 months;

2) Crimes No. 1-g. (g) and 2-g. (g) of the holding: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 2 years and 6 months but not more than 22 years and 6 months; and

(a) Defendant A, B, and E

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 5 (not less than 30 billion won) (not less than 8 years) increase area (not less than 8 years)

* descriptive criteria: 1-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Persons] When committing a crime against an unspecified or large number of victims, or repeatedly committing a crime for a considerable period of time.

B. Defendant C, D, and F

[Extent of Recommendation] The weighting area (not less than 6 years but not less than 99) of Category 5 (not less than 30 billion won)

* descriptive criteria: 2-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Persons] When committing a crime against an unspecified or large number of victims, or repeatedly committing a crime over a considerable period of time

C. Defendant G

1) 1-g. (g) Crimes of Article 1-g. (i): Crimes of violation of the Act on the Regulation of Unauthorized Receipt of Goods listed in the ruling and the latter concurrent crimes of Article 37 of the Criminal Code, so the sentencing criteria are not applicable.

2) The first-class 2 and second-class 2 of the holding

[Extent of Recommendation] Type 5 (at least 30 billion won) (at least 8 years) increased area (at least 10 years)

* descriptive criteria: 1-stage increase in type as a result of adding up the same competition;

[Special Persons] When committing a crime against an unspecified or large number of victims, or repeatedly committing a crime over a considerable period of time

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances shall be taken into account, and the number of sentencing factors specified in the arguments in the instant case, such as the Defendants’ age, health, family relationship, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, shall be determined as ordered (for the Defendants B, E, and G, the punishment shall be determined by exceeding the lower limit of the recommended sentencing guidelines, considering the following circumstances):

○ Circumstances unfavorable to: The instant crime was committed by the Defendants, taking part in W and Y’s commission of the instant crime, and acquired money from many investors on the ground of their game machine purchase business in X and Z. Defendant A, as the chief of the accounting division of X and Z, directly participated in managing the said company’s funds, and directly engaged in managing and maintaining false transactions. Defendant B, C, and D, the chief of the headquarters, Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G, as the chief of the headquarters, and the chief of the headquarters, and Defendant G, as the chief of the headquarters, solicited the victims to participate in the instant crime for a considerable period of time. The degree of the Defendants’ participation in the instant crime is significant. The instant crime was committed by more than 300 persons, and the total amount of damage was more than KRW 3,00,000,000,000, and the amount of damage was issued to buyers by external sales, and was issued with pictures issued to them, and the crime was committed in the form of an organized and non-profit game fund or an unspecified method of society.

Considering such circumstances, the Defendants need to be strictly punished for the amount corresponding to their responsibility. (The Defendants B, approximately KRW 1.7 billion in Defendant C, KRW 3.3 billion in Defendant D, KRW 3.4 billion in Defendant E, KRW 1.6 billion in Defendant E, KRW 1.6 billion in Defendant G, and KRW 170 million in Defendant G).

The circumstances favorable to ○○: (a) the victims received a considerable amount of money from X and Z under the pretext of profit, and the actual amount of damage seems to be less than the amount of damage recognized in the facts of the crime. Defendants A, B, and E are recognized and reflected. Defendants C, D, and F are first offenders, and there are no records of criminal records and severe punishment. Defendants C, D, and G are not the chief and the chief, but the degree of participation does not reach the degree of the chief and the chief, and in the case of Defendant G, the allowances and operating subsidies, etc. actually acquired in the instant crime are relatively small compared to the other Defendants, and the degree of awareness of illegality does not seem to be relatively smaller than those of the other Defendants who were at ordinary times engaged in the instant crime. Defendants D provided considerable cooperation in the investigation by providing information necessary for the investigation process with W, Y, respectively. Defendants C, D, and C, and C, and C, as part of the victims of the instant crime, and there is no need to punish the victims of the instant crime under the latter part of the Act.

Of the facts charged against Defendant E-Defendant 2, No. 90, G 90, G 90, G 90, G 200, G 90, G 200, G 90, 200, 70, 80, 90, 700, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 200, 70, 90, 90, 207, 100, 67, 100, 100,

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

Articles 354 and 328(1) of the Criminal Act provide that a crime of fraud between lineal blood relatives, spouse, relatives living together, family members living together, or their spouses shall be exempted from punishment. Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act provides that when a crime of fraud is committed between relatives other than those mentioned in paragraph (1), a public prosecution may be instituted only when there is a complaint.

According to the records, with respect to the fraud of Defendant C with respect to Defendant C’s fraud against Defendant C’s N, the fact that Defendant C’s Defendant C’s spouse of G Q, the fourth degree of his spouse, and the victim’s P as stated in No. 233, as to Defendant C’s fraud against Defendant C’s fraud as to Defendant C’s fraud regarding Defendant C’s fraud against Defendant C’s N No. 66, No. 1181. As to Defendant C’s fraud against Defendant C’s fraud, the fact that Defendant C’s Defendant C’s wife was his wife of G Q, the fourth degree of his spouse, and the No. 233, and the fact that Defendant Q was the spouse of GR, the punishment of Defendant C, respectively.

In addition, as to the fraud against the victim's R as stated in the separate crime list No. 38 (Defendant F) among the facts charged against Defendant F, the victim's R is acknowledged as to the fraud against the defendant F's spouse of GT, the other spouse of GTS, the other spouse of the defendant F, and the victim's S as stated in No. 460 of the No. 460, as to the fraud against the victim's T, the victim's son's act of fraud against the above GS's husband, the other spouse of GU, the other spouse of the above GS, and the victim's fraud against the victim's U as stated in No. 638 of the above GS, as to the fraud against the above GS's husband, the other spouse of the above GS, and No. 908, as to the fraud against the victim's U as stated in No. 1105 of the No. 1105.

Each of the above facts charged can be prosecuted only when the victim files a complaint pursuant to Article 328(2) of the Criminal Act. Since there is no evidence to prove that the above victims filed a complaint, each of the facts charged is invalid due to the violation of the provisions of the Act, and each of the facts charged is dismissed pursuant to Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge and presiding judge;

Judges Lee Jong-soo

Judge Kang Han-soo

Note tin

1) It does not put the Defendants at a disadvantage in exercising their right of defense regarding the facts charged (including the attached list of crimes) in the indictment.

To the extent, some correction was made according to facts obtained through the examination of evidence without the amendment process.

2) It is the temporary class before it becomes the head of the regular headquarters.

(iii) is a temporary class before becoming a head of a regular department.

4) As seen below, Defendant E participated in the instant crime from April 2013, such as the written indictment, as seen in the following.

Inasmuch as there is insufficient evidence to prove that Defendant E participated in the instant crime from December 1, 2013, the most favorable to Defendant E.

The determination shall be determined.

5) Of them, the amount paid out of the proceeds (entrusted management commission) to investors is approximately KRW 4,24.2 billion.

6) Prosecution specified as the date of commencement of crime in W andY District Court 2017Gohap24, 277(combined), 496(Consolidated)

It is the point of time.

7) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud), the crime of fraud and the sentencing guidelines are not set.

Since violation of the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, etc. and violation of the Act on the Regulation of Temporary Receipt is concurrent crimes.

The minimum limit of the punishment of fraud shall be applied to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud).

8) Inasmuch as a person is of the same kind, the type and the area of recommendation shall be determined on the basis of the aggregate of the amount of profit;

1/3 of the lowest limit of sentence range shall be mitigated because the type of the most severe individual crime increases in one step;

The scope of sentence of Type 4 (not less than 5 billion won, less than 30 billion won) of systematic fraud among the most serious single crime

imprisonment for a term of eight years which is the lowest limit.

9) Inasmuch as a person is of the same kind, the type and the area of recommendation shall be determined on the basis of the aggregate of the amount of profit;

1/2 of the lowest limit of sentence range shall be mitigated because the type of the most severe individual crime increases in two levels;

Category 3 (not less than 50 million won, less than 500 billion won) of systematic fraud among the most serious single crime less than the extent of sentence

one year’s imprisonment of up to six years.

10) Since it is a concurrent offense of the same kind, the type and the field of recommendation shall be determined on the basis of the aggregate of the amount of profit.

because the type of the most severe individual crime increases in one step, 1/3 of the lowest limit of the sentence scope shall be reduced.

but the punishment of Type 4 (not less than 5 billion won, less than 30 billion won) of organizational fraud among the most serious single crime

Imprisonment with prison labor for a term of eight years which is the lowest limit of quantity.

11) It is specified that the sales of X No. 458 are written in the order of evidence No. 458.

12) Violation of the Door-to-Door Sales Act, and violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising without Permission, there is no exception to relatives.

Therefore, this does not apply.