The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, on December 26, 2011, jointly operates the victim E who operated the “D Private Teaching Institutes” located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, and the said private teaching institute. “A person on the documents of a private teaching institute shall be the victim, the actual operator shall be the victim, the Defendant shall exercise overall control over the management of the private teaching institute, the operation income of the private teaching institute shall be distributed to 5:5, and the private teaching institute income shall be deposited into the

“A written agreement shall be made with the content of the agreement, and the agreement shall enter into force on the 29th of the same month.

On January 26, 2012, the Defendant embezzled total amount of KRW 70,231,720 of tuition fees over 176 times, as stated in the attached list of crimes, in the following manner, when receiving tuition fees of KRW 350,00 from F who was enrolled in the above private teaching institute, and keeping them for business purposes, the Defendant embezzled the Defendant’s personal bank account (G) which is not the above national bank account in the name of E, not the above national bank account in the name of E.

2. The Defendant asserted consistently from the investigative agency to this court, and consistently, the Defendant and the victim were operating a H driving school (the trade name was “H driving school,” and the Defendant changed the name to “D driving school,” while operating the h driving school; hereinafter “instant driving school”). The Defendant decided to administer the h driving school, and the Defendant did not agree to receive the h driving school deposit from the national bank account in the name of the victim, and there was a case where the Defendant received the h driving school deposit from the Defendant’s account as before for the convenience of the students who paid the h driving school from before the h driving school to the Defendant’s account. The Defendant was aware of this fact, and the Defendant paid the h driving school operating expenses from the tuition fees received in his own account, and distributed the remainder, and there was no fact that the Defendant embezzled the h driving school.

3...