When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Around April 16, 2015, the Defendant transferred the right to lease the said coffee shop from the injured party to another person at the coffee shop located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (n, 49 years of age) that he leased and operated by the injured party C (hereinafter referred to as the “victim”) to return the deposits to the injured party. On May 16, 2015, upon delegation from the injured party’s authority on the coffee shop, the Defendant transferred the right to lease the said coffee shop to another person; he was given a refund of KRW 11,30,000 of the rent deposit for the coffee shop that the injured party paid to the owner of the coffee shop, and received a demand from the injured party on May 16, 2015 to request the above money from the injured party on May 20, 2015, notwithstanding the receipt of demand from the injured party on May 16, 2015.

6. 16. 16. 3 million won was refunded, and 4.3 million won was consumed voluntarily by hospital expenses, etc. around that time, and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness C’s legal statement (the Defendant and his defense counsel delegated the victim C with the duty of transferring a coffee right and receiving a deposit for returning it to the Defendant. Around May 8, 2015, the Defendant and his defense counsel drafted and issued a letter stating that KRW 4,30,000,000, out of the above deposit 1,1,300,000 won shall be paid to the Defendant as a fee, and thus, the said money was received under an agreement with the victim and does not constitute embezzlement

A copy of each letter bound on the 38th page of the investigation records is a copy of a document prepared on a computer, etc. without a self-written part. The victim consistently asserts that the above copy is also the principal’s seal impression, but no other document is prepared. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant appears to have held the victim’s seal impression in order to handle the victim’s business. As such, the existence of the above copy of the document appears to have reached an agreement between the Defendant and the victim as alleged by the Defendant.

The recognition is insufficient, and it is otherwise recognized.