The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) executive officers, including the Defendant, of the C market prosperity Association approved D as the president and paid individual attorney-at-law fees with public funds around 2001; and (b) around March 2008, Defendant 2008 approved by the board of directors of the merchants’ association (hereinafter “C market prosperity Association”) that E paid individual attorney-at-law fees with public funds by the president (hereinafter “C market prosperity Association”). Since around 2005, D used attorney-at-law fees as public funds against E until filing a complaint for the suspicion of occupational embezzlement, it is reasonable to use them as public funds until D filed a complaint for the suspicion of occupational embezzlement.

Around May 2004, the executives of the prosperity Association sent the content certification of May 4, 2004 and May 14, 2004 (hereinafter “each content certification of this case”) to D, who is the former president of the prosperity Association, demanding D to pay “the portion of expenditure for the modification of articles of association, electrical supervision expenses, entertainment expenses, etc.” (hereinafter “the contents certification of this case”). Since D’s fee was judged to be natural to use it from public funds, there was no discussion about it when calculating the use of the changed rules, and there was no decision as to whether it should be included in the changed public funds.