From October 23, 2005, the defendant is the head of the victim E association in Gyeyang-gu Incheon, which is engaged in the operation of the above association.

The Defendant, from January 2, 2007 to June 2007, received at the above partnership office from F, a contractor for the reconstruction project, an amount equivalent to five million won in the name of partnership operation expenses each month, and kept in custody for the victim. From January 2, 2007, at the Incheon Gyeyang-gu G Hospital, voluntarily consumed KRW 98,560 in the name of an individual’s fee, as well as from the above date and time to June 19, 2007, the Defendant embezzled it by arbitrarily consuming KRW 3,308,980 in total on 33 occasions as shown in the annexed crime list.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Presentation of Materials of Suspect);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

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

1. Penalty fine of KRW 1,000,000 to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (i.e., the amount voluntarily used by the Defendant is not larger than the total operating expenses of the association; and (ii) the fact that the Defendant has been written with the intent to operate the association at the time of the charge of all the initial operating expenses of the association; and

1. The defendant asserts that the amount, excluding medical expenses and medicine expenses, is used for the operation of the association, is used for the operation of the association.

However, it is necessary for a prosecutor to prove that there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intention of acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement, and there is no reasonable doubt for the judge.