Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

Defendant

B.

A. Defendant A (1) omitted in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A's crime No. 1 of the judgment below

(a) through (e);

The court below erred in failing to render a judgment on the following, even though it alleged that “I made a statement on five occasions, such as the statement in this case, on the summary that “I made a thief and a bief, inasmuch as I is a thief and a bief, inasmuch as he is a thief, which replaced the tolerances of the K K K Won,” it constitutes Article 310 of the Criminal Act:

(2) Although it was true that Defendant A made the instant speech by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, the content is not a false fact as a true fact based on reasonable grounds.

In addition, in order to prevent the disqualified person from being elected as the president of the General Affairs Office, the statement of facts alleged true is solely for the public interest, and its illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) When taking into account the various circumstances on Defendant A of unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too heavy.

B. In light of the prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding of facts (the part not guilty of Defendant A’s reasons), the statement of the witness AI at the lower court, and the details of the cash receipts and disbursements distributed at the time, it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant A embezzled public funds by the victim on September 4, 2009 by stating that, around September 4, 2009, Defendant A had approximately twenty members of the City/Do Head Office of the Religious Organization and approximately twenty members of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the City/Do and the head of the City/Do branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of Korea.”

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the charged facts on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts.