The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

The summary of the facts charged has been trading from April 2007 to pay interest 1.5% of the principal every month after borrowing money from victim D from victim D.

Since September 4, 2008, when the defendant remitted interest to the bank account of the victim on the date of interest payment, the victim re-transfers the money received to the defendant's account on the same day plus the difference between the deposit amount and the deposit amount to the defendant's account, and the defendant deposited the money received into the account deposit amount in the name of the defendant in the number of the defendant in the non-indicted E's account operated by the non-indicted E, and then changed the transaction method by receiving the deposit amount to pay the interest to the victim on the maturity date

Therefore, even if the name of the fraternity was the defendant, since the victim was fully paid the fraternity, the defendant received the fraternity, and there was a duty to pay it to the victim immediately.

On April 15, 2010, the Defendant opened a deposit amount of KRW 2.5 million organized by the above E, and opened a deposit amount of KRW 40 million at KRW 40,500,000,000,000,000 from the victim each month, and received KRW 2.5 million from the victim each month.

On the other hand, the defendant separately bears the above E's liability of KRW 84 million.

On July 15, 2013, the Defendant was expected to receive KRW 132.6 million from E due to the expiration of the foregoing guidance, and thus, there was a duty to immediately pay the full amount to the victim.

Nevertheless, the defendant around May 3, 2013:

5.13.Landscaping;

5. Around 29.29. Around each other expressed to E the intent to offset the sum of KRW 3,000,000,000, in total, from the estimated amount of the foregoing fraternity payments received, to E, by its obligation.

In addition, on the date of receipt of the fraternity, 5.6 million won out of 12.6 million won again expresses its intention to offset its obligation, and 47 million won was received, and 50 million won was paid to the victim, including 3 million won in total.

Accordingly, the defendant has a duty to manage another person's affairs.