The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around the end of December 2000, the Defendant entered the Fund accounting staff of the victim E operation in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu and took charge of accounting affairs, such as the company’s fund management, from that time until September 19, 2009.

The Defendant, while working as the above F’s accounting staff, was instructed by the victim to perform the accounting affairs such as the payment of the accounts for customers from the victim’s bank (Account Number G), corporate bank (Account Number H), Korean bank (Account Number I), Korean bank (Account Number J), corporate bank (Account Number J), and corporate bank (Account NumberK) to embezzled F’s public funds by being transferred to the Internet banking and managing the funds in the account in the account name of the victim’s bank (Account Number G).

Around October 22, 2001, while the Defendant kept F’s funds for business purposes, he embezzled KRW 60,500 in total 827,79,577 in the same way as indicated in the annexed Table 1-22, as shown in the annexed Table 1-22 from January 4, 2001 to September 14, 2009, as if he were to transfer KRW 60,500 from the F Office located in the passbook (Account Number G) in the name of the victim to the “L”.

2. Determination

A. Even though there is an act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition in the judgment criteria for embezzlement, it is necessary for a prosecutor to prove that there is such an act. The evidence should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which causes a judge to have no reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest. Accordingly, the money which the defendant has been in custody under his/her entrustment is all.