Where the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Defendant

A Until April 30, 2014, until April 30, 2014, he/she was in office in the "E operated by the victim D" in the context of public order, and the same year.

5.30.Around 30.m., prepare a certificate of payment purporting to receive 5.3 million won as retirement allowances, salaries, and hospital expenses and to adjust claims and obligations with E.m.

Defendant for the same year

7. At around 30.0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.

9.On June 1, 198, the sum of KRW 1,820,022 was remitted to keep 3,636,334.

Around that time, the Defendant rejected the demand from the victim for the return of the above money and embezzled it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness G, H and I;

1. A written confirmation of payment or an employee;

1. Current status of the relocation of employees on April 2014, details of payment, current status of probation, etc.;

1. A written confirmation of hospitalization (including attached documents);

1. Inquiry into the results of transfer management;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal death to the Employment and Labor Agency;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

1. In a case where money has been wrongfully transferred to a bank account with a mistake on the ground of conviction under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a custody relationship is established under the principle of good faith between the depositor and remitter. Thus, the defendant's act of arbitrarily withdrawing and consuming money deposited to the bank account under the name of the defendant due to a mistake in the remittance procedure constitutes embezzlement.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Do891 Decided December 09, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the evidence of the ruling, namely, ① the Defendant submitted to E a resignation report (the resignation date stated in the Corruption) around May 8, 2014, and submitted it to E (the resignation date stated in the Corruption was first indicated on May 8, 2014, but the Defendant revised the resignation date to April 30, 2014 after consultation with the Defendant and E).