On May 19, 2008, the Defendant voluntarily transferred KRW 800,000 from the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of F (H) in the name of F (H) account, which is the management fund of G operation funds, to the post office account in the name of the Defendant, and used it for personal purposes around that time.

The Defendant, including this, embezzled 438,391,280 won in total on 154 occasions between May 19, 2008 and September 4, 2014 by using the same method as the list of crimes in the attached list of crimes.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion that the property of G belongs to F, a chief secretary of the victim G (hereinafter “the instant inspection”) (as examined thereafter, it is reasonable to view that the property of G belongs to F. As seen earlier, F is deemed to be the victim) with prior instructions or permission from F. Therefore, there was no criminal intent of embezzlement, since the Defendant withdrawn or used the money deposited in various financial accounts under the victim’s name with prior instructions or permission.

3. Determination

A. The conviction of the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such convictions may lead to such convictions, even if there is doubt of guilts, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7454, Nov. 15, 2012). (1) The admissibility of evidence submitted by the prosecutor submitted by the prosecutor, which seems consistent with the instant facts charged, is admissible.