The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

The victim misunderstanding the essential facts of the reasons for appeal introduced the F, and paid F the F the F the guidance more than 10 times at his request, and there was an agreement that the victim would be responsible for this part.

Therefore, it does not constitute an act of breach of trust where F does not pay a fraternity payment after receiving a fraternity payment and pays only the remainder of the fraternity payment to the victim except the F portion from the fraternity payment to be received by the victim.

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

The summary of the facts charged as to the assertion of mistake of facts is that the Defendant organized and operated the 31 foot 30 million foot 31 unit system as an external mother of the victim C on January 15, 2014. As such, the victim was assigned No. 9 No. 1 unit for the 1.5 unit as a member of the fraternity organized by the Defendant, and No. 31 unit for the 0.5 unit for the 0.5 unit.

The above fraternity operated by the Defendant is a serial book that pays KRW 1 million per month from January 2014 to July 2016, and no interest shall accrue since the Defendant, the owner of the household, receives the fraternity money.

The number of members of the fraternity is 30,000 won, plus 300,000 won (30% of the old reserve fund) monthly interest on the principal of 30,000 won, and 30% of the monthly payment after the receipt of the fraternity was operated by the defendant in a way that the defendant is more and more and more and more than 30% of the monthly payment.

When the Defendant received fraternity money from the fraternity members around July 15, 2016, the Defendant had a duty to pay KRW 17.750,000 to the victim C, which was the 31st order set by the said fraternity operation rules in accordance with the above guidance operation rules.

However, the defendant paid 2050,000 won to the victim and did not pay the remainder of 15,770,000 won to the victim, thereby causing property damage equivalent to 15.7 million won to the victim.

The lower court determined on the facts charged of this case.