The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who, working as the director of the “Ctel management office,” which is a Ctel controlled entity from January 2001 to December 2008, managed the management of facilities, the payment of public charges, the notification of management expenses, and the receipt thereof.

Around August 16, 2004, the Defendant: (a) requested that his female be lent KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant’s Suhyup account (Account Number:F) because he was aware of the collection of the above officetel management fee at the office of E, the representative director of the corporation, the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu Office, Daejeon, and that he would be paid the said officetel management fee for seven months; and (b) he then received KRW 15,000,000 from his female to transfer to the Defendant’s Suhyup account (Account Number:F) and embezzled it for the purpose of the Ctel management office, for the purpose of the Ctel management office, there was KRW 15,00,000 from August 18, 2004.

B. Around December 14, 2004, the Defendant borrowed KRW 6,000,000 from the office E as stated in the above paragraph (a) because the above office expenses for officetels management fall short of the above office management expenses, and embezzled KRW 5,000,000 on the part of the Defendant’s national bank account (Account Number: G) in the above office of the victim Ctel management office in the above office as the management expenses for officetels management expenses. On December 24, 2004, the Defendant transferred KRW 6,000,000 to the Defendant’s national bank account (Account Number: H) in the custody for the victim.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant and his defense counsel paid 20,000,000 won to the I who possessed the above officetel No. 508 by the representative director E with the eviction agreement amounting to 20,000,000 among them, and the defendant paid 15,000,000 won through the defendant under the permission of E, and that the above 5,000,000 won was partially repaid to E, and thus, it does not constitute the crime of occupational embezzlement.

Each part of the testimony, each of the witness E, J and I, each of the daily account table, each of the check inquiries, the details of each financial transaction, and receipts.