Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the chairperson of the victim D organization located in Seo-gu Incheon City from May 1, 2013 to February 6, 2014, who was in charge of the operation and accounting of the said council.

As the president of the above Council, while managing the business account (E BankF), the Defendant embezzled the total amount of KRW 7,543,840,00 in total four times, including withdrawing KRW 600,00 from the above account and arbitrarily using it, around June 24, 2013, while performing the duties such as management expenses, necessary expenses, etc., as the president of the above Council, and then arbitrarily consumed and embezzled the total amount of KRW 7,543,840,00, as shown in the attached list of crimes (excluding No. 4 times a year) until February 18, 2014.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to G;

1. Statement made by the police in relation to G;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. A detailed statement of transactions in each account, a detailed statement of imposition of management expenses, and application of each receipt statute;

1. Relevant provisions of the Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) (including), and the choice of fines, concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the point of occupational embezzlement listed in No. 4 of the list of offenses in the indictment of this case) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the order of provisional payment;

1. On February 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) withdrawn KRW 114,00 from the business purpose account (E BankF) of the victim D organization’s business purpose account on February 1, 2014; and (b) embezzled business by arbitrarily consuming it.

2. In full view of all the evidence presented by the Prosecutor, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant withdrawn cash as stated in the facts charged on February 1, 2014 and embezzled, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, it is so long as it is found guilty of embezzlement on duty in the judgment that is a single comprehensive crime.