On April 19, 2010, the Defendant stated that “A need to take expenses to be incurred in obtaining a contract for construction works for the creation of a universal movable cemetery, which is implemented by the ND Co., Ltd., Ltd.,” from the victim C to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on April 19, 2010, KRW 50 million on May 7, 2010, KRW 50 million on May 15, 2010, KRW 50 million on May 15, 2010, KRW 100 million on September 20, 2010, and KRW 250 million on a total of four occasions, including KRW 10 million on September 20, 2010.

However, the Defendant used the above KRW 48 million to cover the expenses already incurred in order to give orders for civil engineering works for the creation of movable property cemetery works, and used the above KRW 12 million as the office operating expenses and loan repayment for the above E company.

As a result, the Defendant embezzled KRW 150,000,000, which was kept under custody as the principal expenses for the construction works for the creation of the Bo movable cemetery.

2. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant and his defense counsel received KRW 250 million from the victim is not the money entrusted by specifying the purpose of use, but the Defendant borrowed money from the victim under the pretext of the expense for the owner of the construction work. Therefore, even if the Defendant used the said money as stated in the facts charged, the crime of embezzlement is not established.

3. The crime of embezzlement is established in the event that the entrusted funds with the specific purpose of judgment are used for any purpose other than the limited purpose in mind. The witness F’s legal statement, the witness C’s legal statement, and the prosecution against the Defendant.