All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (unfair imprisonment for eight months) is too unreasonable.

B. Of the facts charged in this case, the duty of the Defendant to collect the deposit amount from the principal and the principal, and to pay the deposit amount to the other members of the fraternity constitutes the duty of managing the affairs of the fraternity as well as the duty of the other members of the fraternity. In particular, it is natural that the principal has already received the deposit amount from the other members of the fraternity, and that if the principal has collected the deposit amount from the other members of the fraternity, it would be expected that he will be paid the deposit amount including the deposit amount to be borne by the Defendant. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant did not collect the deposit amount for the portion equivalent to the portion which was not actually paid, on the ground that there was no collection of the deposit amount, among the facts charged in this case, on the ground that there was no collection of the deposit amount, which was in turn paid by the principal as the principal of the fraternity, which affected

2. The duty of guiding the determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is to collect monthly payments from the members and provide them to the designated members on the time limit date designated under an agreement with the members. Such duties of the guidance principle are to deal with the duties of the members who are others at the same time as their own duties. Thus, if the guidance holder violated his duty even though he fully collects monthly payments from the guidance members, and did not pay them to the designated fraternity without justifiable grounds, barring any special circumstances, the breach of trust is established in relation to the designated fraternity.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do221, Mar. 8, 1994). Meanwhile, in a case where a guidance holder did not collect the fraternity payment from a guidance holder, the obligation to pay the fraternity payment in such a state does not reach a fiduciary relationship.