Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From 197 to 1997, the defendant has been engaged in overall control over the partnership affairs as the chairperson of the victim D apartment reconstruction and rearrangement project promotion committee in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

For the above promotion committee, the Defendant borrowed 26 million won operating expenses of the said promotion committee from Samsung C&T, a construction company, and kept in its business;

1. Around September 25, 2008, the Defendant’s personal defamation case (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da4689) is transferred to the deposit account on the Thai-il Law Firm at one bank located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul at the expense of attorney-at-law in the case of personal defamation (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Da4689);

2. As the above defamation case (Seoul Central District Court 2008Kadan4689) was convicted of a fine of 3 million won, around May 20, 2010, 300,000 won was paid from our bank located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, as a fine for the above case, and embezzled the sum of the operating expenses of the said promotion committee, which is the victim’s property, KRW 13 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Court rulings of the first instance in criminal cases;

1. Details of advance payments, and settlement of accounts of project funds for 2010;

1. Investigation report (report accompanied by a copy of non-prosecution records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report (the defendant and his currency);

1. Relevant Article 356 of the Criminal Act and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense; and Article 356 of the same Act concerning the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that in the relevant defamation case, since the defendant was sentenced to a fine on behalf of the promotion committee chairperson while performing duties as the chairperson of the promotion committee of this case, the defendant's expenses for appointing attorneys and fine may be paid at the expense of the promotion

2. However, with respect to the matter on which the Defendant was removed from the F Auditor.