The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant engaged in the business of operating “G real estate” on the third floor of the victim C, D, E, and Gangnam-gu Seoul FF building with the National Bank Account (H) in the name of C (G real estate) and has been in charge of accounting and accounting.

A. The Defendant: (a)

2.2. Around February 15, 2012, while withdrawing KRW 5 million in cash from the said partner’s gold account and keeping it for business purposes, he/she voluntarily consumed and embezzled the same on a private basis, such as the cost of purchasing handbags, among Hong Kong travel.

B. On February 9, 2012, the Defendant: (a) transferred ten Hong Kong organization travel expenses (one million won per person), including E, to the national bank account in the name of the Defendant; (b) transferred the money to the bank account in the name of the Defendant; (c) transferred the money to the bank account in the name of the Defendant’s I on the same day; (d) voluntarily consumed around that day; and (e) embezzled the said money by using the money as a partner of the said G real estate.

C. Around March 28, 2012, the Defendant received KRW 12 million (1 million per capita, but KRW 3 million per capita) from a national bank account under the name of the Defendant to transfer it to an account of the national bank account under the name of the Defendant, and transferred it to a single bank account under the name of the Defendant’s husband on or around March 28, 2012, the Defendant returned KRW 9.5 million to the Defendant’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband, and embezzled the remainder of KRW 2.5 million by arbitrarily consuming

2. Determination

A. On February 2, 2012, there is a statement by D, C’s investigation agency and this court as evidence that conforms to this part of the facts charged, and C was present at the third trial date of this court and stated that “The reason why C is deemed embezzlement is the same as money when compared with the details of expenditure on February 2, 2012.”

However, according to the statement of bankbooks (the same as the statement of transactions of entering and withdrawingG real estate submitted by the defendant), and each copy of the complaint, C is against the defendant on September 27, 2012.