The defendant is a person who has been in the management of the victim in the third floor of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building.

The Defendant, using the title of passbook, seal, and password opened in the name of F, etc. and managed it, sent the passbook, seal, and password to F, G, H, I, and J that did not actually paid the benefits, as the Defendant paid the benefits, from the operating funds of the Victim Company to the account under the name of each of the respective titles, and received the money to withdraw it in cash.

On March 8, 2006, the Defendant, at the office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., remitted KRW 2,710,690 to the F account as benefits, and then withdrawn the funds in cash again, and kept them in the business. At that time, the Defendant, from that time until March 10, 2009, embezzled the funds of the victim company, which had been kept in the business by using the same method, total operating funds of the victim company, which had been kept in the business as shown in the attached list of crimes, from that time to March 10, 209, arbitrarily used the same amount of KRW 37,915,980.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of F;

1. The part concerning the statement of F in the second interrogation protocol against the defendant during the second interrogation protocol

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A copy of the Nonghyup AFF Bank;

1. Application of each investigation report (the Nos. 11, 16 of the evidence list) and accompanying Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel regarding the pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts

1. The defendant and his defense counsel paid benefits to F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter "F, etc.") and borrowed them for the purpose of operating funds of the victim company, and then used them as funds for the management of the company. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that this would not be the rate of occupational embezzlement for operating funds of the victim company, but should be the ratio of embezzlement for personal funds of F, etc., and that prior consent of F, etc. was obtained.

2.On the basis of evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following: