The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. The fact-finding that the defendant did not pay the amount to the victim C is due to the need for settlement due to the payment of the amount that the victim did not pay, and the defendant did not reach an agreement on the settlement with the victim, and despite the defendant's intention of occupational breach of trust, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case and erred by misapprehending the facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing decision, the lower court’s sentencing (basic fine of KRW 6 million) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. On July 15, 2009, the Defendant, along with the victim C on July 15, 2009, is a co-owner organized a ten foot number system (hereinafter “10 million won number system”) with a monthly deposit amount of KRW 10 million. The Defendant and the victim, as a co-owner, agreed to be liable for the deposit of the accounts of the members of the fraternity he manages the 3.5 unit and the victim, while managing the 3.5 unit system. The Defendant received on May 15, 2010, the remainder of the deposit amount of KRW 7,975,00,000, excluding the part of the victim’s share, which is the recipient of the above number system, and thus, the Defendant has a duty to pay the amount to the victim. Nevertheless, the Defendant violated his duty and thus, did not receive the payment to the victim, thereby acquiring the victim’s property interest of KRW 200,000 and KRW 209,750,000,00.

As a co-resident, the defendant and the victim are responsible for the deposit of the accounts of six accounts and the members of the fraternity who are managed by each party while managing four accounts.

The defendant around July 25, 2010.