When the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Around November 2014, the Defendant, who is engaged in the brokerage business as a cargo corporation, entered into a partnership agreement with C and the victim D on the condition that the Defendant will acquire and resell the total of KRW 140 million truck 5 and 4.5 tons truck owned by the freight corporation E and 1 ton truck owned by the said corporation, in total, KRW 50 million and KRW 4.5 ton truck, and then distribute profits after settlement of accounts.

On November 26, 2014, the Defendant: (a) acquired a limited company E; (b) sold to F two of the seven vehicles of KRW 4.5 tons of cargo vehicles of KRW 4.5 to KRW 40 million; (c) transferred KRW 20 million, which is part of the purchase price, from F, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant on December 9, 2014; and (d) embezzled the said KRW 20 million from around that time to December 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed KRW 17.6 million of the said KRW 7.6 million from the said KRW 7 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of a suspect by a public prosecutor against the defendant or D;

1. Statement made by the police against C;

1. The transfer contract for each corporation (I, D/I, J), certificate of confirmation of transfer of Internet banking, E borrower's detailed statement, the ledger of automobile registration (A), K/ L, business registration certificate, certificate of all the registered matters (A) and certificate of all the registered matters, and details of transactions of deposit and withdrawal;

1. An investigation report (the telephone investigation) [if a partner did not settle the distribution of profits and losses among the partners, a partner does not have the right to dispose of the business property belonging to the partnership of the partners at his/her own discretion. Thus, if a partner has embezzled the business property at his/her own discretion during the custody of the business property, then he/she shall be liable for the crime of embezzlement against all the amount arbitrarily embezzled regardless of his/her equity ratio (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17684, Jun. 10, 201). In this case, the defendant, who received 20 million won from F, did not notify the victim of the fact that he/she received the above money even though he/she falls under the business property, M. 17.6 million won out of the said money, and N.