A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

From October 25, 2011 to August 31, 2013, the Defendant served as a liquidator of the Victim E-Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter referred to as “victim Association”) located in Yongsan-gu Seoul and 201.

The Defendant was in custody of the victim’s corporate bank account (F) and the single bank account (G) for the victim’s corporate partnership funds.

On August 31, 2013, the Defendant used KRW 34,95,000,000, respectively, to use KRW 3,000,000 among the expenses of the victim association owned by the corporate bank account on August 23, 2013, and KRW 34,95,000,000, respectively, to use KRW 9,000,000,000, in order to avoid dismissal of the defendant by a member of the victim association, knowing that the victim association members want to dismiss the defendant at a liquidator, and received a written withdrawal of written resolution of dismissal from the defendant from the member.

As a result, the Defendant embezzled the property of the victim union.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of the witness H and I;

1. The police statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a Tong, service contract, resume, attendance book of E area, daily activity report, written statement of extraordinary general meeting, special general meeting by proposal of the liquidated corporation, public notice of convening an extraordinary general meeting, and articles of association;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Grounds for conviction and sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

A. The Defendant acknowledged the fact that 34,955,00 won was used as service expense among the union funds kept as stated in the facts constituting a crime, but asserts that it was not for preserving the personal status of the Defendant or minimizing criminal acts, but for coping with disputes arising in the course of appointment or performance of duties as a liquidator, and therefore, there was no intention of embezzlement.

However, partnership.