The Defendant was engaged in a certified judicial scrivener’s affairs (such as acting as an agent and related affairs) with the trade name “Certified Judicial Scriveners A” in the office of the victim E located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, on September 29, 2011, and the Defendant was requested to transfer the ownership of the Jinjin-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government F. 290.5 square meters, G large scale 530 square meters, and the above G-gu building (the fifth floor, the underground floor) located in the Dong-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City, to transfer the ownership of each of the above G-gu buildings (the fifth floor, the underground floor), such as acquisition tax, registration tax, and stamp, and received KRW 30 million on a check on the same day in terms of expenses related to the registration affairs, and received KRW 22,758,860,000 from around October 11, 201 to the victim’s account, and received KRW 52,758,60,000.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion of the police's statement statement of Eul argues that 7 million won out of the above amount should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement because the defendant actually disbursed it as expenses related to the registration business. Thus, although the defendant bears the burden of proof for all parts of the defendant's conviction, if the defendant who received money from others in the name of expenses related to the registration business for other's real estate and used all the received money without completing the registration business, it is reasonable to presume that the money was consumed by the defendant for other purposes, and it can be said that the money was used for the purpose of keeping the money.