If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On March 16, 2007, the Defendant accepted the “E Institute” located in Dong-gu, Ulsan-si (hereinafter “FH”) and agreed to operate it as a business partnership with the victim G, and on the same day, the Defendant received KRW 84.5 million from the victim as a partner deposit and invested with the Defendant’s funds together with the amount of KRW 84.5 million, and paid KRW 50 million as the lease deposit to H, who is the lessor of the building of the said private teaching institute, as the above partner deposit.

On December 15, 2008, the Defendant terminated the lease contract on the grounds of the closure of the above private teaching institute, and around December 15, 2008, the Defendant returned the remainder of 22 million won after deducting the monthly rent of the remaining lease term of KRW 24 million and the expenses for restoration to the original state from KRW 4 million from the above H, from the rent deposit, and stored for the victim, at the office of the FFK, and around December 2008, the Defendant used the Defendant’s husband as the repayment for the loan, or embezzled it by arbitrarily consuming it as operating expenses, etc. of the KKKK’s private teaching institute opened solely to the Jung-guJ on March 2009.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including G statements);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse

1. Of the lease deposit returned by the Defendant’s assertion, KRW 11 million was used to pay the Plaintiff’s confidential benefits, and KRW 10 million was used to repay the loan borrowed under the name of the Defendant’s husband in the course of operating a private teaching institute, and thus, it did not constitute embezzlement as there was no money to be reduced to the victim.

2. The decision-making property belongs to a partner's partnership, so as long as the partner exists in the partnership relationship, the partner does not have the right to dispose of his/her share of the business property at will and the partner's share at will.