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

1. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around July 17, 2015, at an influent office located in Busan District Office, introduced F to the victim E, a C insurance designer, a C insurance agent, as an insurance contract; and (b) concluded an insurance contract with the victim’s insurance designer code; (c) the victim agreed to receive insurance payment from the insurance agent under the condition that the insurance contract is maintained; (d) on the same day, F as the insurance contractor, as the insured of F, as the insured of F, and received KRW 7,337,837 from the victim of damage on August 31, 2015; and (e) accordingly, (e) there is a duty to make efforts to maintain the above life insurance contract in accordance with the above agreement.

Nevertheless, on September 2015, the Defendant, as an insured person of the above C Life Insurance, may receive a refund of insurance premium if he/she terminates the insurance contract within three months from the actual contractor as the insured of the above C Life Insurance around September 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant terminated the above C Life Insurance contract, and obtained F’s consent by purchasing new H Life Insurance Policy with the code of the insurance designer affiliated with I, H agency, around September 24, 2015, purchased the insurance contractor as F, with the insured as the insured of the H Life Insurance, and had the first representative K receive KRW 4,271,930 on October 23, 2015, including KRW 4,271,930 on October 30, 2015, KRW 84,530 on October 30, 2015, and KRW 860 on July 30, 2015, and had the victim receive the victim life Insurance as the victim life Insurance premium.

As a result, the Defendant acquired the pecuniary advantage of KRW 8,543,860 as an act in violation of the duty of a person who administers the affairs of the victimized person, and thereby caused the damage to the victim in property of KRW 7,337,837.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence of this case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is that the Defendant manages another’s business.