1. From February 28 of the year 4291 to July 24 of the year 835,823 exchange money collected from the Government on credit from February 28 of the year to July of the year 4299 to 481,905 exchange money for living expenses and other consumption and embezzlement for living expenses from the distance at the time of keeping 481,905 exchange money from the date of February 28 of the same year;

2. The Government, on September 6, 4290, does not distribute 70,000 exchange money distributed for the purpose of lending money to the Government for agriculture to the Government for agriculture, but does not distribute it to the Government for itself, thereby causing damage equivalent to the amount of each benefit for agriculture to the beneficiary by consuming it in violation of its functions; and

3.To consume in the same way 47,500 returned money distributed with the agricultural capital of the same kind prior to June 18, 4291, thereby causing loss to each beneficiary.

4. From April 18th, 4289 to June 6th, 4290, the government loaned grain to a pulse farmer, distributed to the spitors, etc. allocated to the spitors, etc., and secured at the branch office of the Korean Agricultural Bank in the name of the defendant being 26 suffered from among the pits recovered in pride from December 4290 to February 4291, and embezzled as 5,40,400 currency loans in the name of the defendant being 5,40,400 currency, and consumed as living expenses, children’s education expenses, etc. at the time of storage, and 37,000 won for self-consumption;

5. From December of 4290 to February of 4291, 132, 17,000, 17,000, i.e., a distribution farmland repayment pit, which was collected and kept from 38 persons, such as a street-free profit and 17,000 farmland repayment pit from 38 persons, had been secured before the branch office of the country of war, and has been loaned a gold of 714,500 and embezzled for consumption to the former living expenses and other consumption.

each fact in the judgment of the court below is without merit:

1. Statement in each ruling in the party proceedings of the defendant;

1. Among the trial records of the court below, each part of the statements made by the defendant, non-indicted 1, 2, and 3 in the same paper

1. Statement of the same as indicated in each ruling among the suspect interrogation protocol for the accused of the prosecutor;

1. Each statement made with respect to Nonindicted 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, etc. in accordance with the judgment in the preparation of a disposition of judicial police officer's affairs;

1. Each fact that each evidence seized can be recognized by taking into account the existence of each evidence is sufficient to prove the difference in all.

In the case of the so-called occupational embezzlement in the law, the points of each of the judgment of the defendant are as follows: Article 356 and Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act; each of the occupational embezzlements falls under Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the Criminal Act; since the defendant selects each of the prescribed penal provisions among the prescribed penal provisions under Articles 356 and 355 (2) of the same Act, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of one of the concurrent penal provisions under Article 37 of the Criminal Act and Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 50 of the same Act.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since each of the charges is without merit.

Judges Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Judge)