The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

From February 2013 to February 4, 2016, the Defendant, as the president of the Victim H Association in Songpa-gu Seoul, took overall control of the foregoing Association’s business affairs and kept public funds of the Association for the sake of the Victim Association. On January 14, 2015, at the above Association’s office, the Defendant embezzled KRW 10,000,000, out of which the Defendant used 10,000,000 as the prize money of the International Association’s J Games by another organization that is in charge of the president, and embezzled by arbitrarily consuming KRW 85,00,000,000 in total four times from that time to February 4, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of K witness, and the legal statement of L part of the witness;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against each part of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Details of reorganization of passbooks in the H Association Exchange Bank account [the defendant and his defense counsel did not have the defendant's intent of embezzlement or unlawful acquisition;

The argument is asserted.

For embezzlement to be established, a person who keeps another's property shall, with the intention of unlawful acquisition, embezzlement or refuse to return the property in breach of his/her occupational duty, and the intention of unlawful acquisition is the intention of unlawful acquisition.

The term "an intention to dispose of property of another person in violation of his/her duty for the purpose of pursuing his/her own interest or a third party, such as his/her own property, and even if there is an intention to return, compensate, or preserve it later, there is no difficulty in recognizing the intention of illegal acquisition, and as such, it does not require the deduction of the amount of ex post facto compensation or preservation from the amount of embezzlement (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do3399 Decided May 27, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court, the defendant was merely a short-term loan with the Secretary General L to use it for a short-term loan and accounting by changing it, and there was no resolution of the board of directors and other legal advice.