A. A. Around February 2013, the Defendant supplied capital reduction to the Plaintiff, including the victim C, victim D, victim E, victim E, victim F, victim G, and victim H, and supplied capital reduction of KRW 650 per 1kg of capital reduction to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 600 per 1kg of capital reduction to the Plaintiff, and received the remainder of KRW 50 as commission.

Around June 2013 to July 2013, the Defendant received a reduction of a total of 722,190 kilograms from the above capital farmer and supplied it to the KFFI in the name of capital cultivator. Around that time, the Defendant received KRW 165,56,500 from the KFFI to pay the reduction of capital (excluding KRW 36,109,50,000 of the total fee to be received by the Defendant) (excluding KRW 36,109,50 of the fee to be received by the Defendant) from the KFI in order to distribute the capital to 40 victims who did not receive the capital reduction, such as the list of crimes in attached Form.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victims' property.

It is difficult to view that the defendant should pay in proportion to the amount of capital reduction received from the Corporation I, including the victims, to each farmer cultivating capital reduction according to the quantity of supply of each farmer, and it is not reasonable to prosecute that the prosecutor should pay in proportion to the quantity of supply of each farmer.

Therefore, it is understood that 40 persons who did not receive all the 40 persons from among the farmers growing capital are all the victims, but the above 40,786,50 won shall be paid to the 40 persons growing capital, but the amount to be distributed to each of the farmers cannot be specified. Thus, it is understood that they were indicted to the effect that each victim embezzled the misappropriation of the 40 persons who did not receive all the 40 persons.

B. From the end of Jun. 2013, the fraud Defendant concluded to the effect that “When agricultural cooperatives and MOU are supplied to KRW 550 won per 1 km because agricultural cooperatives and MOU have been concluded, the Defendant would make the agricultural cooperatives pay the purchase price directly from the agricultural cooperatives within one week.” This would be lower than the market price.