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

The Defendant, from October 2010 to Seodaemun-gu, was delegated by E, the president of the association of the reconstruction and improvement project association of the D connected Housing reconstruction and improvement project in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, and was engaged in the act of proxy for the president of the association. From October 17, 2011 to October 201, the Defendant was a person who took office as the president of the association and took office as the president

On October 27, 2011, the Defendant: (a) around October 27, 201, while there were occupational duties to use the partnership fees received from the members from the above partnership offices located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government for the purpose of collecting them; (b) however, in order to resolve legal disputes related to the partnership, the Defendant: (c) made the F deposit of the refund amount to the Nonindicted Party G; (d) made the G deposit of the refund amounting to KRW 17.1 million, out of the partnership fees collected as attorney’s fees for the settlement of legal disputes related to the partnership; and (e) made the G use of the refund amounting to KRW 9 million for the repayment of personal obligations to the Defendant H, thereby obtaining property benefits equivalent to KRW 9 million and causing property damage equivalent to

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Testimony of witnesses I, J and K respectively;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including the part concerning the J, K, and I statement);

1. A protocol concerning the police investigation of suspect with regard to F;

1. Details of deposits in cooperatives;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning investigation reports;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. In determining the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when operating a cooperative, the Defendant appropriated funds for the Defendant’s personal money or expenses borrowed from H and subsequently received the settlement of accounts later. The Defendant borrowed KRW 4 million from H on November 22, 2010 as operating expenses of the cooperative and used them as insufficient expenses, and the amount of KRW 5 million on October 25, 201 as attorney-at-law’s appointment from H.