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

On June 29, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (a indecent act, such as a deceptive scheme, by a minor under the age of 13) at the Seoul High Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 12, 2017.

The defendant, who had been engaged in sediment without a license, was aware of the victim B, who was found the defendant, in the course of conducting sediment operations with the victim B.

On January 2016, the Defendant received KRW 66.5 million from the injured party at any time on the front side of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C's location, on condition that the victim should return at any time.

On February 2016, the Defendant returned KRW 10 million out of the above money to the revenueer of the house owned by the victim upon the victim’s request. While the Defendant kept the remainder of KRW 55 million on behalf of the victim, the Defendant refused to return the remaining money on several occasions on April 2016 by demanding the return from the victim to be returned on several occasions without justifiable grounds.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B and E;

1. A copy of inquiry into the details of receipt of deposits, recording paper 19, and transaction details of passbook B;

1. Previous convictions: Court rulings and application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning search of cases;

1. Article 355 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1) of the same Act:

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act concerning the custody of the victim’s money [a fact that the defendant kept the victim’s money, or that the victim did not recover the money even though the victim did not bring the money to the victim, the defendant asserts that he did not embezzled the amount of money of the victim.

However, according to the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the victim is a defendant several times according to the record containing the contents of conversation between the victim and the defendant.