If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

From around 2008, the Defendant was in charge of the general affairs of the “C HA”, and the “C HAD” decided to dissolve around March 2013, and decided to sublease the warehouse in Jeju City D, which was leased and used without compensation from the agricultural cooperatives, from the said small-scale group, and to distribute the whole price among the small-scale members, and the Defendant decided to take charge of the receipt and distribution of the above pre-sale price.

1. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract to sublease 72 of E and 160 square meters of the warehouse E from the above warehouse to E by April 13, 2019, and then received 6 million won from E as a full-time payment from E to stored for the group members of C such as victim F.

2. On June 26, 2013, the Defendant concluded a contract with G to sublease 8 of the 160 square meters out of the 160 square meters of the warehouse G from the YY branch of the Republic of Korea, Jeju-si to June 25, 2016, and received a transfer of KRW 8 million to the agricultural cooperative account under the name of the Defendant for the purpose of the members of the C such as the victim F, etc., and embezzled by consuming it for personal reasons, such as interest and living expenses, etc. from the members of the Jeju-si, Seoul-si, Seoul-si, Seoul-si.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Complaint;

1. A real estate lease agreement and a certificate of cash custody;

1. Application of investigation reports (Attachment of Details of Account Transactions in NongHyup under suspect's name) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The favorable circumstances such as the agreement with the victim on the reason of sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's reflection of the defendant are considered to have been reflected in the determination of a fine for summary order, and the defendant's economy.