A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for six months.

However, the two years each from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant

A is a person who manages the overall operation of the above E with the chairperson in 2014 of the victim E in this case, and the defendant B is a standing vice-chairperson in 2014 of the above E and a person who actually manages the above E membership fee.

After receiving the request from Defendant A to borrow KRW 50,000,000 from Defendant A’s seat, the Defendants were able to make payment later after using the public funds of the above E.

Defendant

A around October 2014, at the above E office, the executive secretary stated to the effect that “The amount of money in the passbook in the name of E is transferred to the Korean bank with a high interest rate,” and Defendant B stated that “(2) shall be given a thesis passbook to be identified,” and the Defendants kept the said accounts in the name of E in the course of business.”

The Defendants voluntarily withdrawn KRW 20,00,000 around October 22, 2014 from the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the above E’s name, and KRW 54,978,919 around October 30 of the same year, and then remitted KRW 50,00,000 among them to the above F, and personally consumed the remainder of cash.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Statement made to I and G by the police;

1. Investigation report (related toG telephone communications);

1. Investigation report (Attachment of E Articles of Incorporation);

1. An inquiry about details of transactions and a certificate of deposit transaction;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the protocol concerning the examination of suspects to the accused;

1. The Defendants: Articles 356, 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 356, and 355(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; the Defendants’ choice of punishment for a crime

1. Defendants on probation: The responsibility of the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is not weak in light of the amount of embezzlement by the Defendants.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendants were fully returned the embezzlement money and that there was no criminal history above the imprisonment without prison labor, the degree of participation in this case is determined.