Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the defendants are above one year from the date when this judgment became final.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the general affairs of the victim D clan, and the defendant B is the wife of the defendant, and the person who actually managed the property of the same clan.

around February 3, 2017, the Defendants: (a) received 47,980,000 square meters in selling 5,303 square meters, and 536 square meters in the name of the Defendant’s agricultural bank account in order to use it for personal purposes; (b) offered to use it for personal purposes; and (c) used 16,071,000 won in the form of a truck purchase price under the name of the Defendant A from that date to April 26, 2017; and (d) used 47,962,093 won in total of the proceeds from the sale of land kept for the victim’s clan, such as as in the list of crimes, from that date, until April 26, 2017.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled 47,962,093 won of the property owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each police statement on G, H, I, J, K, L, or M;

1. A list of each clan property;

1. D clans' articles of association;

1. A full certificate of registration of the clan land;

1. Investigation report (related to E, F);

1. A copy of the bankbook;

1. Investigation report (related to the place of use of the purchase price of N land);

1. Investigation report (related to the specification of the amount of embezzlement);

1. In the investigation report (to hear the statements by reference I), the Defendants and the defense counsel denies the intent of unlawful acquisition and the intent of unlawful acquisition, but so long as the Defendants used the proceeds of land sale for personal purposes as criminal facts, it cannot be denied the intent of embezzlement and the intent of unlawful acquisition on the ground of “the Defendants had the intent to return at any time”. Furthermore, the Defendants’ criminal intent can be acknowledged in accordance with the evidence.

In addition, Defendant B and the defense counsel denied that the above defendant was in the position of "a person who keeps the victim's clan property", but according to the evidence above, the above defendant could be recognized as having actually kept the victim's clan property together with Defendant A.