If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On October 30, 2009, the Defendant was sentenced by the Gwangju District Court to two years of suspension of execution for the crime of occupational embezzlement, which became final and conclusive on December 9, 2010. On July 15, 201, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on October due to occupational embezzlement, etc. and said judgment became final and conclusive on September 17, 201.

The Defendant, from February 27, 1996 to April 26, 2008, was in office as the president of the DDR located in Gwangju, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and was in general in charge of the affairs of the union.

The defendant, while making a personal travel unrelated to the union while he received a corporate card for business purposes, embezzled the equivalent amount of money by allowing to pay a total of 612,900 won and pay it to the union money, as shown in the attached list of crimes, while making a trip to Germany and France over 10 times, around August 28, 2005, at his own discretion approving KRW 30,000 from the Incheon Airport E (State) located in Jung-gu Incheon Airport located in Jung-gu, Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to write down a statement of user price;

1. Article 356 of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act (generally and collectively, selection of fines);

1. The latter part of Articles 37 and 39 (1) of the Criminal Act (the crimes of occupational embezzlement, etc., for which a judgment of the first head of the crime at the time of the sale, becomes final and conclusive) concerning concurrent crimes

1. The reasons for the sentencing of Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act are not the same, but a final and conclusive judgment exists in a concurrent relationship under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act due to occupational embezzlement for the same victim, and the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects it, the punishment as the order shall be determined.