A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

[Attachment] Around February 2012, the Defendant agreed to manage and work on the part of the victim under the condition that the Defendant would receive wages equivalent to KRW 70,000 per year from the victim’s son-gun, Jeonnam-do (hereinafter “the head of this farm”) from the victim’s wife C, the wife of the victim B, on the condition that the Defendant would receive wages of KRW 70,000 per annum from the victim.

At the time, the victim was required to be a member of the E Association (hereinafter referred to as “E”) in order for the victim to operate the instant culture farm in Jeondo-gun, Jeonnam-do, but the victim already operated the culture farm in Jeonnam-gun F, Nam-gun, and thus could not become a member of E. Therefore, the victim entered into a contract for exercising the fishery right under the name of the Defendant by having the Defendant become a member of E’s association and the members of the fishing village fraternity, and the victim was in a position to substantially operate the culture farm and manage it.

In addition, around September 2016, in order to raise funds to additionally install the chip farm, the victim borrowed funds from the defendant as the debtor and received a somewhat low interest from E. In order to obtain the fishermen's successor funds, the victim also received the whole chip money sold by the victim for the purpose of accumulating transaction performance in order to obtain the fishermen's successor funds, by means of the G Union account in the name of the defendant.

Since then, when the defendant was dissatisfied with the victim, he could no longer work in the above-mentioned forms, the defendant used the details of deposit of the sales proceeds of the whole clothes owned by the victim with the account in the name of the defendant and the details of remittance again to the victim, and the fact that the defendant did not have a relationship of business with the victim since he did not have a right to the whole clothes owned by the victim, and even though he did not have a relationship with the victim, the defendant was in a relationship with the victim by investing in the victim