Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

On September 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) agreed to commission the “E” of the D C’s C’s chemical composition as a person engaging in art brokerage business; (b) sold the D’s chemical composition in exchange for the payment of KRW 740,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the payment of KRW 59,50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,0000,000 won; and (c) embezzled the payment of the payment of the payment to G by offsetting’s ar, who sold the said picture to G without knowledge of the victim on October 2, 2013; and (d) embezzled the damage claim equivalent to KRW 15,50,00,00,00,00 for the above C’s penalty.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Details of each testimony of the witness F, H and G;

1. The application of each civil judgment and receipt statute, each of the certificates of receipt and custody of works, written agreement on transactions of art works, details of transactions by period of receipt, copies of each protocol of examination of a witness to I, H, and F;

1. Relevant Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which costs of lawsuit

1. The Defendant and H concluded an art transaction agreement replacing the existing consignment contract with respect to the instant forest on October 2, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is no longer in the position of a person who stores property for H, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit embezzlement or to acquire illegal gains because, in the situation where only the remainder of the purchase and sale pursuant to the said art transaction agreement is paid to the victim, there was no intention to lawfully set off the crime of embezzlement with the opposite claim against H.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence revealed prior to the determination as to the existence of the custodian’s status, the agreement of October 2, 2013, whereby the Defendant as the purchaser of the art works, replacing the existing consignment sales agreement.