However, as to the Defendants for three years from the date of the final judgment of this case, the Defendants are above.

Defendant

B From May 2007, a person who was delegated by the F at a fish teaching institute for the F operation of the building 5002 in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and was engaged in the overall management of the fund as the president. Defendant A’s father was registered as the representative director of the Victim G corporation established by the F with the F’s delegation from March 201 to March 201.

On May 20, 201, the Defendants conspired to make a joint withdrawal of KRW 460,00 in the name of the national bank account in the name of the following account opened by F in order to manage the cash revenues, etc. of G, and deposited KRW 460,00 in the name of the next account opened and managed separately by the Defendants on the same day. At that time, the Defendants embezzled it by means of transferring it to the national bank account in the name of Defendant A and using it. From that time until December 31, 2013, the Defendants embezzled all KRW 595,372,00 in the same way as shown in the attached list of crimes by 892.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each prosecutor's office and police interrogation protocol for the Defendants (including F substitute part)

1. Each specification of transactions (the sequence 17 through 21 of each evidence list);

1. The details of each embezzlement (the sequence 22,23 of the evidence lists);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each financial transaction statement (the sequence 43, 44, 45 of evidence list);

1. Relevant Articles 356, 355(1), and 30 (General Provisions) of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime

1. Defendants who hold a suspended sentence: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances are considered among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Defendants of the community service order: Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendants alleged that the Defendants were in the name of I and J (the name of the National Bank in the name of I and the new bank L account in the name of J; hereinafter the “instant account”) are in relation to the operation of the said LAC.