Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 million won and fine of 3 million won, Defendant B of 2 million won, Defendant C of 15 million won and Defendant C of 1.5 million won.

(a) and details of payments;

1. Receipts, etc.;

1. Reports on internal investigation (the results of warrant execution -B account transactions statement);

1. Report on internal investigation (the result of warrant execution -A, a detailed statement of account transactions in X);

1. The details of the investigation report (H Statements);

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Y and Z;

1. Each statement of witness G, AA and H in the 8th trial records;

1. Each statement made by a witness, aJ, aC and AD in the 10th trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the Defendants, AE, AF, AG, and H

1. Each prosecutor's statement made to AC, H, A, and J;

1. Each police interrogation protocol on the Republic of Korea, L, M, N,O, AE, P, Q, Q, J, R, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AH, AM, AM, AG, UNFCCC, AO, and AP;

1. Investigation report (information and noise measurement);

1. Investigation report (Attachment of materials related to interference with business);

1. The assembly-related documentary photographs;

1. The assembly photographs by date; 3.1.-

3.23. 23.) and assembly photographs by date (6.9 -

6.17.)

1. Defendant A’s legal statement

1. Application of statutes concerning criminal records;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the choice of punishment for the crime A* Defendant A: Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 356 and 355(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

1. Handling concurrent crimes (Defendant A) (latter part of Article 37 and Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Defendant A);

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Defendant A and his defense counsel asserted that with respect to the part of occupational embezzlement, the instant cafeteria was not operated directly by the trade union, but only operated individually under a contract with the principal vice-chairperson of the trade union at the time according to the contract with the hotel side of this case. Thus, the crime of occupational embezzlement is not established on the premise that the profit accrued from the operation of the instant cafeteria belongs to the ownership of the trade union of this case.

l.p. g., p.