From 2003 to 2011, the Defendant entrusted the advisers of the C organization with the overall operation of the Hastman conference and the Hastmamann conference organized by the International Newspapers every year.

On May 18, 2008, the Defendant arbitrarily obtained KRW 3,100,000,000, which is a part of the custody of the victim C for personal purposes, from an international newspaper, from the international newspaper, in relation to the Habaman's Organization Support Fund and Pestaum Support in relation to the Hababa Bath which is held at the Busan Mabababa, Seo-gu, Busan, Busan, and subsequently consumed for the victim C's organization for a total of seven times from that time to May 22, 2011, as listed in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

2. Determination

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition, and the proof ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads to a judge to have no reasonable doubt, and in the absence of such evidence, there is a doubt of guilt against the defendant even if there is no such evidence.

Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.

On the other hand, if there is a lack of evidence to support the fact that the defendant used money in the place of use claimed by the defendant, such as failure to explain his/her whereabouts or place of use, or disclosure that the funds used in the place of use claimed by the defendant were appropriated for other funds, and there is a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant used money for personal purposes, it may be presumed that the defendant embezzled the money with the intent of unlawful acquisition. However, if there is no reason to recognize the existence of the intention of unlawful acquisition, it is difficult to explain the whereabouts or place of use of the money for the reason that it is difficult to recognize the existence of the intention of unlawful acquisition.