SUWON, South Korea — A composer who claimed he had direct ties to Bang Si-hyuk and used that claim to pitch a BTS-related business has lost his appeal and will serve six years in prison, closing the door on a fraud case built on industry credibility—and deception.
On April 15, the Suwon High Court upheld the original ruling, rejecting the defendant’s appeal in a case involving approximately ₩1.3 billion (about $1 million).
At the center of the case was a business proposal that, on paper, looked entirely plausible.
The man, identified only as “A,” approached the CEO of an information and communications company—referred to as “C”—and pitched a plan to launch a BTS-branded jeans line. He proposed setting up a new corporation, transferring licensing rights into it, and running the venture independently.
It followed a structure familiar to the entertainment industry: licensing, equity positioning, and expansion through a new entity. The kind of deal that, with the right backing, can move quickly.
That was the point.
A BUSINESS MODEL THAT FELT REAL
According to prosecutors, the defendant presented himself as someone already operating within the BTS merchandise ecosystem through an existing firm, referred to as “Company B,” which he said produced and sold items such as BTS slippers.
He claimed:
- He had acquired a 50% stake in the company for ₩1 billion
- The jeans business could be built on that existing foundation
- His personal relationship with Bang Si-hyuk would allow the project to move forward
He also went further, telling investors that a HYBE team leader was actively working behind the scenes to secure licensing rights—creating the impression that the deal was not just possible, but already in motion.
Based on those claims, he received ₩750 million (roughly $550,000) as a supposed acquisition payment tied to Company B.
He later secured an additional ₩550 million (about $400,000), telling investors the funds would be used as lobbying money to finalize licensing for the project.
WHERE THE STORY COLLAPSED
The structure held. The details did not.
Investigators later confirmed that the defendant had never acquired any stake in Company B. More critically, the company itself had never discussed or pursued a BTS jeans business with HYBE.
The licensing pathway he described did not exist.
While roughly half of the funds were ultimately passed on to Company B, the court found that the overall scheme was built on false representations about ownership, access, and authority.
Judges also noted that despite raising significant capital, the defendant made little effort to develop the proposed business and showed no meaningful remorse.
“The nature of the crime is extremely serious,” the court said, pointing to both the scale of the fraud and the way it was carried out.
WHY THE SENTENCE STUCK
The appellate court upheld the original six-year prison sentence, stating that it fell within a reasonable range given the circumstances of the case.
The ruling also took into account the defendant’s prior fraud conviction from around 2000, for which he served 10 months in prison—an aggravating factor in sentencing.
At the same time, the court acknowledged that not all of the funds were retained as personal gain, noting that a portion had been transferred to Company B. That, however, did little to offset the broader pattern of deception.
A CASE ABOUT ACCESS—OR THE ILLUSION OF IT
There is no indication that HYBE or BTS had any involvement in the scheme.
But the case offers a clear look at how perceived access operates in the entertainment business.
The defendant didn’t need real authority. He needed something that looked like it—proximity to the industry, a recognizable name, and a deal structure that mirrored legitimate licensing practices.
That combination was enough to move close to a million dollars.
In an industry where intellectual property drives global revenue, access—real or implied—carries weight. This case shows how easily that weight can be exploited when credibility goes unchecked.
