Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in charge of the victim's "C" audit.

On September 4, 2015, at around 13:00, the Defendant arbitrarily carried out documents such as the above list of members of the Association, copy of the articles of incorporation, copy of the head of passbook, two copies of the account of the Association (2013-2015 financial status table, statement of profits and losses, statement of profits and losses), the current status of the rent for the head of education in 2015 and copy of the lease contract for the head of the office, copy of the office lease contract for the head of the office, the details of deposit and output of the accounting data, the copy of the subsidy-related official proposal, and the education for military official's order for military service in 2015.

around that time, the Defendant received a request for return of the above documents from E, the president of the Victim Association, but rejected it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the accused (including part concerning the E-examination);

1. A criminal investigation report (a photograph attached, No. 45 pages 1, No. 1 of investigation records);

1. A witness G counterpart investigation [the above evidence and the Association documents provided for the audit duties previously had no room for auditors to leave the Association office voluntarily, ② the auditor appears to have requested the submission of a new data in the event necessary to respond to the preparation of an audit report or the submission of an objection to the audit, ③ the meeting held before the instant case is likely to have delivered an intent to the effect that it is prohibited from indirectly and indirectly taking out the documents related to the Association in order to prevent the unharm caused by the leakage of the documents, ④ even if the Defendant had no knowledge of the prohibition, the Defendant carried out the documents in question outside the outside.

Even if the request for return is received later, but it is difficult to understand it for the following reasons, and it is recognized by the above evidence.