If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

From March 2004 to February 9, 2012, the Defendant, while serving as the head of Bosung-gun, Bosung-gun, Jeonsung-gun, the Defendant kept the funds owned by the victim in the passbook (C) under the name of the victim, and managed the revenue and expenditure thereof.

On February 9, 2012, the Defendant continued to keep the above passbook in custody even though E had been elected as a new passbook at the village assembly. On February 27, 2012, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim by voluntarily withdrawing KRW 2 million from the above passbook in the Seongbuk-gu Seoul High Court located in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul High Court.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement (a statement to the effect that there was a withdrawal of the money in the judgment of the defendant, but this is sufficient to punish the defendant's personal money for the village);

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. A statement of transactions of ordinary deposits and a copy of a passbook of village public funds;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as book copies;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under the main text of Article 186 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant, while serving in this Chapter, appropriated the expenses to be used as village funds for personal expenses, and then withdrawn from the passbook of village funds to pay the said money upon the withdrawal of this Chapter, so there is no intention of unlawful acquisition. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant appropriated the expenses for personal expenses as above.

(A) The arguments of the Defendant should have been withdrawn through legitimate procedures, such as community conference, in order to be punished as above.