The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

An application filed by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Around January 201, the Defendant agreed to operate a clothing store in the E E building A, 201, 202, and 203, which had been occupied by a lease agreement under the name of D, the husband of D, and agreed to manage the clothing store. Around January 201, the Defendant agreed to settle the lease deposit and the sales revenue already paid by D in the future.

Afterwards, the Defendant continued to operate the above store with cumulative damage, and paid KRW 43 million exceeding KRW 40 million, which D spent as lease deposit, to F. On the other hand, it is anticipated that damage equivalent to KRW 100,000,000, such as store interior interior expenses spent by the Defendant, would be difficult to claim to D. On January 17, 2013, when transferring the above store to CBTT, the Defendant received KRW 125,00,000,000 from the said company and embezzled it.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the fact that D lent the commercial building of this case leased under the name of the husband C, which was the husband of this case, to the effect that if the profits occur, part of it would be changed.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, D, around January 201, intended to open a new brand in the Sincheon-dong, other than the instant commercial building, but it was difficult to operate two commercial buildings due to the aggravation of the father’s health, etc., but it was difficult for the Defendant to waive the premium due to the absence of the shop occupants. While the Defendant newly filed a business registration after acquiring the instant commercial building from D, D’s business registration, while D’s business registration was closed, the Defendant recruited a new brand instead of the brand which D had been opened and operated, brought up a new brand, brought up the store interior expenses, and decided that D will be responsible if the Defendant’s sales store is fit.