Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

(2015 High 439) The Defendant is the subject of the 21st unit 10 million old unit 21, which was organized at the mutually cafeteria of “D” in Gangnam-gu Seoul on August 26, 2012.

A. On February 26, 2014, when the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the members of the fraternity, the Defendant did not pay KRW 10,500,000 to the members of the fraternity, despite the fact that there was a duty to pay KRW 10,500,000 to the victims E, the Defendant violated his/her duty and did not pay the fraternity, and around that time, used KRW 10,50,000 to pay the Defendant’s personal debt, and incurred damage equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

B. On March 26, 2014, when the Defendant received KRW 10 million from the members of the fraternity, the Defendant violated his/her duty to pay KRW 11,200,000 to the members of the fraternity and the victim F the amount of KRW 11,20,000 on that day, and did not pay the said amount. At that time, the Defendant acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the said amount and incurred damage to the victim, such as using KRW 11,20,000 for the Defendant’s personal repayment of the obligation.

Summary of Evidence

(2015 Maz. 439)

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the witness G in the second public trial records;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to G;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing G's filing of a complaint (2015 high court 439);

1. Article 355 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (2) of the same Act and Article 355 of the same Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (2015 high-class 439), the Defendant and his defense counsel delivered a promissory note to G, the mother of the victims, in advance, and did not pay an advance payment to the victims with their consent. Thus, the Defendant did not have any criminal intent to commit a breach of trust.

claim, in practice.