A and F KRW 1 million each fine, KRW 500,000,000,000,000 for Defendant B, C, and E, and KRW 300,00,00 for Defendant D.

Defendant

A is a H apartment shopping management center; Defendant F is engaged in beauty art business; Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E are shop lessees, who operate each real estate business, interior music business, and static land store.

In fact, the management expenses and income (including miscellaneous income) received by the above shopping mall from the tenant of the commercial building should be paid in special cases for the development of the commercial building.

Nevertheless, at around 18:00 on May 14, 2015, these items were gathered in the meeting room of H apartment building shopping mall located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and they passed the agenda in the process of handling the agenda on the regular meeting of executive officers for the case No. 23855 (Embezzlement) of the Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office 2015 Form No. 2385 (Embezzlement).

Therefore, around May 20, 2015, the operating expenses of the above commercial building were paid to the attorneyJ, and these are competing with each other, and they embezzled the operating expenses of the commercial building by using them in mind.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Any statement concerning the Defendants in part of each protocol of interrogation of the police officer

1. Each police statement with respect to K and L;

1. A list of persons present at a regular meeting of executives, and agenda items at a regular meeting of executives;

1. Standard management rules and articles of incorporation of the commercial aggregate building (H apartment);

1. A written resolution on the substitution of expenditure;

1. Each investigation report (attached a document of transfer of the case, such as the suspect A, etc., the suspect F, etc.);

1. The Defendants asserted that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition of the said report (such as a copy of the summary order) (the Defendants’ filing of the investigation report) (the Defendants’ filing of the criminal complaint that K had paid the attorney’s fee against the shop prosperity for the benefit of the defective organization.

However, it is merely the defendants' independent argument that the payment of the attorney's fees in relation to the case such as embezzlement of operating expenses for commercial buildings is for the benefit of the organization.