A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant B’s new appointment of G at the time of committing a crime of violating the Act of Name of each electronic document as indicated in the judgment of the court below, not January 14, 2016, but the same year.

2. 5. Inasmuch as the Defendant was appointed, the Defendant’s use of the certificate of official approval of G Village Conference with his permission around January 2016, which was in the former president A’s term of office, is not unjustly used out of the scope of use or usage.

2) The Defendants committed the crime of interference with the affairs set forth in the lower judgment by the Defendants, even though, on January 3, 2016, the part of the entrance knobs of the community hall was locked with hacks and locked, it constitutes a justifiable act conducted under the direction and consent of this Chapter in order to prevent the progress of illegal immigration elections.

3) Defendant C’s crime of occupational embezzlement as indicated in this part of the facts charged is not a village association, but is owned by J Farming Partnership Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”). On May 2, 2013, a village association entrusted with the raising of Korea-Japan to J was merely a false entry into a contract to avoid compulsory execution from a creditor of the J. Thus, Defendant C’s failure to return the said contract even upon receipt of the notice of termination.

This does not constitute embezzlement.

B. Each sentence of the lower court (Defendant B: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 6 months of suspended sentence, 2 years of suspended sentence, 40 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on Defendant B’s assertion that Defendant B’s crime of violating the Act on the Protection, etc. of Electronic Documents was identical in the original judgment. The lower court found Defendant B guilty of this part of the charges by taking into account the circumstances as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.