The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the president, who is a representative of the D Individual Trucking Transport Business Association (hereinafter “Association”) established for the purpose of promoting the welfare of the D Individual Trucking Transport Business Operators and protecting their rights and interests.

In the election of the president of the Association that was implemented on December 8, 2015, in addition to Defendant E and F, the deposit money of KRW 2 million was paid, which is the requirement for candidate registration. E was elected, and the deposit money of candidate was reverted to the Association according to the election of the president of the Association.

After the E is sentenced to the invalidation of the election in violation of the election regulations, the defendant has been elected in the election of the president of the Association and has been representing the Association as the chief director and have overall control over the affairs of the Association.

On April 11, 2017, the Defendant, as the president at an office located in G and fourth floors, has occupational duties to faithfully preserve the assets of the Association, and according to the articles of association of the Association, matters concerning the assets of the Association, and other important matters, etc. under the articles of association shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting of representatives. However, even though the association regularly implemented on the same day, including the Defendant, who is the director of the association, proposed a written request for the return of the election deposit requested by F as other items, and passed with the consent of four directors, without following the procedures stipulated in the articles of association or election regulations, such as requiring the return of the election deposit requested by F as other items, and violated the duties such as property preservation, etc., and thereafter, by allowing the Defendant, F and E to pay two million won each as the name of the return of the deposit deposit money to the Defendant, F and E at that time, the Defendant and F have obtained property profits equivalent to two million

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the criminal intent of breach of trust, such as the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) The Association.