Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

(1) The Defendant, from November 1, 1999 to August 31, 2010, was in office as the president of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul National University (hereinafter “A”) and was in charge of personnel affairs, administration and accounting of the above school. Despite the fact that the income belonging to the accounts belonging to the school established and operated by the school foundation of a private school cannot be transferred to or lent to other accounts, the Defendant filed a complaint against the Defendant as defamation around August 2009 by a professor of a school. As to the above criminal case, the Defendant’s appointment expenses were to be withdrawn from the school expenses and used for the appointment of a counsel in relation to the above criminal case. The Defendant embezzled the Defendant’s appointment expenses out of the school expenses, which was in custody of the Defendant’s attorney for the school for the school that is the H of the victim’s school foundation, from the school expenses of the school for the school for which the Defendant was in charge of the Defendant’s attorney-at-law (hereinafter “school”). At the same time, 7.7 million won was transferred to the law firm of the above criminal case.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. A witness I and each part of the court's each legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Payment of attorney-at-law's expenses, case of delegation of criminal proceedings, and certificate of deposit;

1. Inquiry and replys with respect to the accounting of school expenses;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the case transmission note (Secretariat 2009-59)

1. Relevant Articles 356 and 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (the point of occupational embezzlement) and Articles 73-2 and 29 (6) of the Private School Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserting that the disbursement of this case is legitimate in the accounts of school expenses is unfair in relation to the operation of the school expenses council.