Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant organized and operated a map of 20,000 old accounts of KRW 10,000,000 and KRW 500,000,000 from E located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu on August 17, 2013.

1. On February 17, 2015, the Defendant received a total of KRW 8.2 million from the members of the other members of the community, excluding the victim F, in total, 8.2 million won as a fraternity deposit. Accordingly, on the same day, the Defendant had the duty to pay the fraternity to the above victim, which was the 19th day.

Nevertheless, the Defendant arbitrarily used the above fraternity money without paying it to the victim in violation of his duties, thereby acquiring the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 8.2 million and causing a loss equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

2. Around March 17, 2015, the Defendant received a total of KRW 7.7 million from the members of the remainder of the members other than the Victim F, who received a total of KRW 2.7 million as a fraternity deposit. Accordingly, according to an agreement with the said victim, which is a cause of the said 20th day, there was a duty to pay KRW 1.85 million out of the amount as a fraternity deposit.

Nevertheless, the Defendant arbitrarily used the above fraternity money without paying it to the victim in violation of his duties, thereby acquiring the pecuniary benefits equivalent to KRW 3.85 million and causing a loss equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the balance sheet, the list of fraternity members, and the specifications of transactions;

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

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 on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

1. The gist of the assertion was that since each of the number maps of this case had already been dispatched around December 2014, the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of money to the victim who was the next priority fraternity (the prospective recipient of the money from the strike).

This is the requirement for the establishment of breach of trust.