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

The Defendant, from around 1983 to April 28, 2006, worked as the chairperson of the finance committee in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as the “C” located in Dongdaemun-gu. On November 22, 2004, the Defendant received 60 million won of the maturity refund of the fire insurance of the above church from D, and embezzled it by voluntarily consuming it as the operating expenses of the “E”, which is a foreign capital inducement company operating the Defendant, for the trust of the above church. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19835, Nov. 22, 2004>

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. On November 2005, the 6th protocol of the 4th protocol of the witness F's statement recording of the witness I in the witness F's statement recording of the 6th protocol of the trial, the C Financial Report and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to fact-finding response to

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The summary of the argument on the argument of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is that the Defendant used the claim with the financial members at the time when he obtained approval of the I member in order to avoid losses, such as the redemption commission, etc., arising when he immediately performs a loan, while keeping the loan at the maturity of a church's fire insurance on November 2005.

2. Records of the case subject to review were already destroyed due to the expiration of the preservation period.

Even if possible, the records must be restored by making full efforts, and in cases where complete recovery of records is inevitable, the propriety of the first instance judgment, which is the original judgment, should be newly determined by comprehensively assessing the evidence in the original judgment and the value of the newly submitted evidence in the retrial procedure, which can be known by the remaining materials collected, including the written judgment, and by comprehensively assessing the value of the evidence in the original judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do2154, Sept. 24, 2004).