A. In light of the actual status of the maintenance of the clan of this case and the status of the defendant in the clan, there is illegality of intention to commit each crime of this case against the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

(b) Improper sentencing (the sentence of the court below: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than ten months, two years of suspended execution, and community service hours; 120 hours);

2. Determination

A. According to the record as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, from around 2011, was in charge of managing membership fees as a member of the clan of this case, and the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the procedures for the management, disposal, and change of the representative of the clan were prescribed in the rules of the clan but committed each of the crimes of this case without going through the rules of the clan.

Taking into account all the grounds alleged by the Defendant, it may be recognized that the Defendant had intention to commit each of the crimes of this case without due process, and such an act of the Defendant cannot be deemed as an act that does not contravene the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the appellate court is reasonable to respect the judgment of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the first instance sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.

2) The lower court, under the circumstances that the sum of the damages of the instant crime of breach of trust was KRW 152 million and the damages were not recovered, taking account of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that there was no record of punishment exceeding the same kind of crime or fine. In addition, the lower court, taking into account the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., determined a sentence by taking into account various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and arguments.

3) The grounds for the lower court’s unfair sentencing alleged by the Defendant appear to have been sufficiently considered in determining the Defendant’s punishment, and otherwise, the lower court appears to have determined the Defendant’s punishment.