If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

From December 22, 2006, the Defendant is the head of the “C Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association” located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, who is engaged in overall affairs of the said Union, such as management of union funds.

On September 29, 2014, the Defendant damaged the honor of the Defendant by pointing out D’s false facts at the king point of a national bank located in Seongdong-gu, Seoul, Masan-ro 329, and at an ordinary general meeting of the above union held on May 14, 2014, which was held on May 14, 2014.

‘The case' which filed a complaint against D with D was transferred to the account in the name of E (Account Number:F) of the case (Seoul Eastern District Prosecutors' Office No. 2014 type 44389 case).

Accordingly, the Defendant, as the attorney fee for the criminal case of the Defendant’s individual, embezzled the amount of KRW 11 million of partnership funds at his own discretion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. The heads of criminal complaints;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (to submit G data for reference, submit a suspect's opinion, submit a separate complaint, attach a receipt for submitting a suspect);

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 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. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that since the defendant of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) damages the reputation of D by false facts, thereby interfering with the business of D, the case of complaint against D is that the payment of expenses for the operation of the association to the attorney-at-law in relation thereto cannot be recognized as unlawful acquisition intention.

However, it is merely the defendant's independent argument that the damage of the reputation of the president of a cooperative caused interference with the business of the cooperative. Therefore, it is reasonable to pay expenses for the operation of the cooperative in the case of defamation of the principal of the cooperative.