(a) The credibility of statements made by several members of the previous accounts who have joined the said accounts, that they continued to pay the fraternity fees even though they have failed to pay such fraternity fees;

(b) Breach of trust by payment of fraternity dues, delay of payment, and caution;

A. The complainant, who joined several accounts, stated that he/she was dissatisfied with the relationship that he/she received the time limit money from the defendant from the time limit of 1,000,000 won from the time limit of 10,000 won, and that he/she received the time limit money from the defendant. The subsequent credit payment amount is against the rule of experience, barring special circumstances, the complainant's statement that he/she received a shortage of one million won from the time limit of 5,00,000 won from the time limit of 10,000 won is not reliable.

B. Even if it is true that the Defendant, the owner of a map, made a short of one million won payment to the fraternity, at that time, the Defendant would give one million won in the following month, and if the complainant was first aware of the cause of the map, then the Defendant later would not be deemed as an act in violation of his duty to turn on the part of the Defendant.

A. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Articles 598 and 703 of the Civil Act; Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 35(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No2043 delivered on July 12, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

In full view of the evidence adopted by the judgment of the court of first instance and the statement in order of the whole witness in the court of first instance, the court below rejected the defendant's grounds for appeal disputing the fact-finding and maintained the conviction of the court of first instance, on the ground that the defendant, who organized five million won number system, was fully recognized at the time of the judgment of the court of first instance on the ground that the defendant's act of violating his duties by consuming the time limit for the use of the time limit for the use of the time limit for the use of the time limit for the use of the time limit for the use of the time limit for the use of the time limit for the use of 1

However, according to the records, the court below found that the defendant's statement at the court of first instance violated the rule of evidence of 10,000 won and 100,000 won for non-indicted 2's testimony at the court of first instance. The defendant's statement at the court of first instance was denied to non-indicted 1,00,000 won for the time when the defendant was present at the bar of the witness at the court of first instance. It is nothing more than that the defendant's statement at the court of first instance that 10,000 won for non-indicted 2's testimony at the court of first instance and 10,000 won for non-indicted 1,00 won for non-indicted 1,000 won for non-indicted 2's testimony at the court of first instance, and that the defendant's statement at the court of second instance violated the rule of evidence of 10,000 won for non-indicted 1,000 won for non-indicted 5,00 won for non-indicted 1,000.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)