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

1. The Defendant, in the facts charged, completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 4, 1994 with respect to shares of 9,516/126,880 square meters of land D, which is the property of the family-friendly association, 793 square meters of the victim C, the family-friendly association (hereinafter “the family-friendly association”), due to the inheritance of the property.

The Defendant received KRW 18,917,180 as compensation corresponding to the Defendant’s share in the above land at a place where it is unknown on December 23, 2010 when the above inherited land was incorporated into the business of relocating High School, and then embezzled KRW 10,639,200 among the above compensation around May 1, 201, the Defendant returned to the victim, and embezzled the remainder of KRW 8,277,980 for the victim by using it for private use, such as daily living expenses, etc. on May 2011.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant case was that the Defendant did not return KRW 8,277,980 out of the compensation money for the instant land to the Religious Council, as in the facts charged.

The Defendant asserts that, on the ground that the instant land was registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant deducteds the property tax, health insurance premiums, and other various expenses imposed on the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant deduction”) from the property tax, health insurance premiums, etc. imposed on the Defendant. The Defendant’s failure to return is due to the final approval

B. A concrete determination 1) The primary purpose of the witness F’s testimony was that the witness F was not present at the final meeting or meeting of the family council at the time of the instant mutual aid, and that he was present at the meeting from 2016, but he reported the account books of the family council and learned the Defendant’s embezzlement.

Witness

G’s primary purpose of the testimony is that at the time of the instant mutual aid, G was present at the meeting of the final council, and there was no resolution such as approving the instant mutual aid.

2) Meanwhile, the witness H and I testified to the effect that, at the time of the instant mutual aid, the meeting was present at the closed meeting, and that the approval of the closed meeting was granted to the instant mutual aid.

3) Minutes of the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting on March 27, 2011, and the sexual seedlings on September 4, 201.