beta
Text
The accused shall dismiss an application for remedy by the applicant for remedy of innocence.
Reasons
1. The Defendant conspired to acquire investment funds from the victim C as the leakage of E (the Seoul Southern District Court imprisonment with prison labor on May 10, 2017) (the Seoul Southern District Court imprisonment with prison labor on May 10, 201) that is the former secretary of the Co., Ltd.
Therefore, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s residence located in Ulsan-gu, U.S. F and 101 Dong 505 on September 28, 2015, received advice from the damaged party who received the letter and note from the said E to the effect that “in solicitation of individual investors” is “The Company shall lend money to the Company, and shall acquire the Company through M&A to make profits,” and if the Company is operated in the manner of making profits, it shall pay 2-3% monthly profits to investors, and 5% of monthly profits to make investments. The mother shall also obtain a large profit by making an investment, and even if making an investment, E shall not have any opportunity to enjoy from the victim who visited the said speech.
Although we did not speak, the mother of less than 2,000 to 3,000,000 won and made 7,000 to 8,000 won.
Now this is a good opportunity for the end of the day, so that money can be added to the same insurance that does not have much profits.
“A false statement” was made.
However, in fact, D did not have any past results and did not have any items that could rapidly increase the profit from investment in a short period, and did not have to secure the investment amount due to the lack of any items that could be used in a short period of time. As such, D’s business operation with “a return method” in which the principal, etc. is paid to senior investors by using investment funds attracting investors in succession, the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal amount at maturity as well as the high-rate profit agreed upon by the victim. The Defendant did not purchase the house with the investment proceeds because it did not have invested in D, and the Defendant did not have any intention or ability to guarantee the investment amount of the victimized person.