A composer in his 50s who deceived others by claiming he could promote a business related to BTS by leveraging his acquaintance with Bang Si-hyuk, chairman of HYBE, was sentenced to prison again in the appellate court.

The Criminal Division 1 of Suwon High Court (Presiding Judge Shin Hyun-il) upheld the first trial's sentence of six years in prison for composer A, who was indicted for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (fraud), and dismissed the defendant's appeal. The court stated, "Considering all the sentencing factors revealed in the case records and arguments, the original sentence was within a reasonable range of discretion."

It was investigated that in August 2021, at his office in Hanam-si, Gyeonggi-do, A proposed a business for manufacturing and selling BTS jeans products to the CEO of an information and communication service company and others, falsely claiming that he could transfer the license to a corporation he would establish and independently run the business, thereby embezzling 750 million KRW as acquisition funds for the related company. During this process, he tried to gain trust by asserting, "I am acquainted with Bang Si-hyuk, chairman of the HYBE board," and "I have already acquired 50% of the shares of a company producing and selling BTS slippers and other products for 1 billion KRW." He also admitted to receiving 550 million KRW under the pretext of lobbying funds, claiming, "A team leader at HYBE is working hard to help acquire the license for the jeans business."

However, investigations confirmed that A did not actually hold any shares in the company and had neither discussed nor proceeded with the jeans business with HYBE or others. The first trial court stated, "The defendant deceived others by pretending to hold company shares and to be able to promote the business using his connections, despite having no substance, thereby embezzling a large sum of money," and "He made almost no effort or achievement for the jeans business and shows no remorse for his wrongdoing, which reflects the very poor nature of the crime." Additionally, his prior conviction around 2000 for a similar fraud offense, resulting in a 10-month prison sentence, was considered an unfavorable factor, while the fact that about half of the embezzled amount was paid to the related company was taken as a favorable factor.