2. The evidence consistent with the facts charged in the instant case includes the witness’s partial statement in C, the police interrogation protocol of the police interrogation protocol of C and the police protocol of the written statement in C, and the written accusation of C, and each of the above evidence stated C’s statement or C’s statement with the content that the Defendant could withdraw money as described in the facts charged, inasmuch as it is anticipated that he would drink with the employees of the company on November 18, 2012 when he would be able to drink, he would be likely to lose the passbook, and the Defendant sent the head of the Tong to the Defendant who is preparing for business as stated in E’s drinking house operated by the Defendant on fear of loss of the passbook, but the Defendant committed embezzlement as described in the facts charged. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23720, Dec. 1, 2012>

However, according to the evidence No. 1, the above evidence can be acknowledged that E does not operate his business on November 18, 2012, and each of the above evidence contains contents inconsistent with the above facts, and it is very exceptional to write a company's employees and a meeting ceremony on Sundays and a password on the front of the head of the Tong, and thus it is difficult to believe that each of the above evidence, the contents of which are above, is written on Sundays, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged of this case.

Rather, according to the witness C’s legal statement and each police interrogation protocol against the defendant and C, the defendant and C have been living together from April 2012 to November 20, 2012.