A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Punishment of the crime

On January 29, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of 8 months with prison labor for fraud, 2 years of probation, and 80 hours for community service, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2016.

1. The Defendant is an operator of D (hereinafter “D”) established for the purpose of real estate development business, etc. with the head office in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s head office in B C, and the Defendant, from June 2014, as a plan to construct a large scale of cooking in the Philippines by means of daily newspapers advertisement, request for sale agency, etc. from around June 2014, thereby guaranteeing profits to investors.

“To invite investors by publicizing the purport of “...........”

On June 27, 2014, the Defendant had completed the construction contract with G and responsible construction contract with the victim F at the D office located on the first floor of the building in Gangnam-gu Seoul E-gu, Seoul around June 27, 2014.

The purport was that when investing KRW 14 million in the old account, 350,000 shall be paid monthly allowance and the principal shall be returned after one year.

However, in fact, the Defendant was working as a restaurant employee as the failure of the business of a movable property in the 2010-scam planning division, and the Defendant recruited investors by using the land of the said Philippines that had already been failed in the construction and sale business, and then, at the time of attracting investors, did not have any funds despite the likelihood of entering the amount of KRW 10 billion in the above cooking construction cost. However, when the Defendant paid the expenses for operating the office expenses, the investment solicitation expenses (25% investment funds) and the investors’ allowances with the investment funds, the funds actually available for the cooking construction cost would almost remain. Accordingly, even if the Defendant received the investment funds from the investors, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to return the allowances and principal to investors by constructing and selling the cooking in accordance with the agreement.

The Defendant is the victim.