On May 27, 2013, the Defendant transferred the above E sales store to F within the scope of E operated by the complainant D, the complainant in Won-si, Seoul, to F, but arranged a contract for transfer of management rights, the premium of which is KRW 120 million, with the complainant and F.

While the defendant discussed about the payment of the premium to the complainant, F and the respondent, 100 million won out of 120 million won of the above premium is delivered directly to the complainant, and the remainder of 20 million won is not directly delivered by F but by F to the complainant, and when the complainant completes the execution of the sales transfer procedure to F, the defendant, the broker, at that time, agreed to deliver the above 20 million won to the complainant.

While the Defendant kept 20 million won as above for the complainant, on July 6, 2013, the complainant completed the performance of the contract, such as sales transfer, etc., to F, and the Defendant was also aware of such details, the Defendant refused to return money from the complainant even though he/she received a request from the complainant even though he/she paid 20 million won to F.

Accordingly, the defendant refused to return the property of the complainant.

2. On June 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant settled accounts to offset the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant with the remainder of brokerage commission fee against the complainants. Accordingly, the Defendant did not comply with the demand of the complainant to return the above KRW 20 million.

Even if the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established against the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by this Court, the following facts are recognized:

1. The complainant shall act as the broker of the defendant.