1. The sentence against the accused shall be 2,000,000 won;

2. The defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the head of the Chungcheong Branch Office of D (hereinafter “the Association of this case”), a victim, has been engaged in general affairs, such as management of funds of victims, since early 2013.

Around May 26, 2014, the Defendant retired from office, and received KRW 5,858,992 from E to the Korea Bank Account under the name of Defendant (hereinafter “instant account”) and was in custody for the said Association, the Defendant used KRW 2,00,000 from the said account to use the Defendant’s pro rata cost for the same day from the same day until September 16, 2014, as indicated in the list of crimes, and used KRW 5,857,990 in total over 10 times from the same day, as indicated in the list of crimes.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on transactions of passbooks;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 356 and 355 (1) and comprehensive provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment for the crime (opportune selection);

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

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the defendant and his/her defense counsel’s assertion, the defendant and his/her defense counsel did not have any unlawful intent to obtain the defendant.

The argument is asserted.

The intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to the intention to dispose of another person's property in breach of his/her duties, such as his/her own property, for the purpose of seeking his/her own interest or a third party's interest, and there is an intention to return, compensate or preserve it later.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed that there was no intent to obtain unlawful acquisition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do15895, May 16, 2014). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented earlier, there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition by the Defendant.

As such, the defendant and the defense counsel are asserted.