beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On September 2014, the Defendant became aware of the electronic currency “G” from J and K, which became an insurance solicitor by introducing K in the course of studying the investment in G.
B. Around October 2014, the Defendant visited Thailand in which J and G branch offices were located and confirmed whether G was actually used in the transaction. Since then, the Defendant opened a G transaction office in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government L, recruited investors in G business together with D, and transferred money to M and N account in the Central Exchange by receiving investments from investors.
C. From October 2014 to October 2015, the Defendant in collusion with D, against the Plaintiffs, who are merchants operating stores, etc. in the F Traditional Markets located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government O from around October 2014 to around October 2015, G, as electronic currency, shall be used only in the future in the electronic currency, and KRW 600,000, KRW 12,000, KRW 6500,000, KRW 12,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 50,000, and KRW 10,000, more than 3 to 10,000 after the date of purchase, can be paid a large amount of profit. The Defendant’s list of crimes in attached Form 1 from the Plaintiffs under the name of G business investment funds is the amount paid by Plaintiff A, Defendant B, and Defendant C under the name of investment funds.
All as described above, 102,250,000 won were received as investment name and remitted the investment amount to M and N.
The Plaintiffs, on April 24, 2017, are managing the Defendant and D to an investigative agency.
In light of the fact that the defendant and D themselves have invested in G, they filed a complaint in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Unauthorized Receipt of Money, and the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors' Office has investigated it, and deposited the money received from the plaintiffs to N and M as they are. In light of the fact that the defendant and D themselves have invested in G, the decision of non-prosecution shall be made on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the intention of defraudation,