A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 2011, the Defendant is a person who organized and operated a 'numbering system' with 12 fraternity members, such as victims E, at the department shop in Gwangju Northern-gu, and 30,000 won for monthly payment, and 50,000 won for a person who received a fraternity. The Defendant is a person who has operated a 'numbering system' with the intent to additionally pay KRW 1,000,000.

Since the Defendant received fraternity payments from the members of the fraternity such as the victim around August 20, 2013, the Defendant is the subject of the guidance, the Defendant, despite the duty to pay the said fraternity payments to the victim, who is the recipient of the fraternity payments in that month, failed to pay the said fraternity payments to the victim in violation of such duty, and pursuant to the witness E’s legal statement, the amount that the victim is to receive from the Defendant is the principal of KRW 14.1 million as stated in the claim for the fraternity payment lawsuit filed against the Defendant (the remainder after deducting the amount of KRW 3.4 million as stated in the claim for the said fraternity payment lawsuit filed by the victim).

The victims obtained considerable amount of financial benefits, and caused substantial financial damage to the same amount.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness F, E, G, and H;

1. Partial statement of the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the accused (including the substitute part);

1. A report on investigation;

1. A statement of transaction of self-reliance deposit, a copy of a deposit passbook, and a statement of transaction of demand account [the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be deemed to have a duty to pay a fraternity to the victim (or H) of the same cause as long as G, who is the wife of the victim, has not paid a fraternity. However, in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it can be recognized that the defendant paid a fraternity and E (or H) to a different fraternity from that of the instant case where G and E (or H) and received a fraternity. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the fraternity to E (or H) on the ground that G did not pay the fraternity.