The prosecution of this case is dismissed.

1. Around February 11, 2008, the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the victim D to jointly carry out the projects for the sale and management of a tomb and tree in the Hongcheon-gun E members of Hongcheon-gun, Gangwon-do, with the victim D, and agreed not to prepare a sales contract with a third party or receive the sales proceeds without the victim’s written consent, and to distribute the sales proceeds to 50:50.

Nevertheless, on August 25, 2012, the Defendant, at the management office of the above tree farm, sold the tree pool of KRW 6,000,000 to G, who is a bereaved family member of F, without the consent of the victim, and embezzled the above tree pool of KRW 135 times (a total of KRW 732,850,000,00), which is the property of the Dong business, for 135 times from around that time to September 19, 2013, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form 135.

2. According to the records, the Defendant was prosecuted on March 19, 201 by a public prosecutor of the Seoul Southern District Public Prosecutor’s Office on the charge of embezzlement on March 19, 2014, and the relevant case continues to exist under this Court’s order 2014 and 1241.

Even if several embezzlements are committed, when the legal interests of damage are single, the form of crime is identical, and it is deemed that a series of acts continuously conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime.

According to the records, it is reasonable to view that all of the facts charged of the crime of embezzlement and the facts charged of this case, which have already been prosecuted and pending on May 28, 2015, were committed for a certain period of time under the criminal intent of a single and continuous criminal defendant, because the victim, as D, has a single legal interest in the damage of the victim, and the victim arbitrarily sold and embezzled the head of a tree without the consent of the victim. Therefore, all of the facts charged of this case are a single and continuous criminal

Thus, the public prosecution of this case constitutes a case in which public prosecution was instituted again.