A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence of the prosecutor’s (1) misunderstanding of facts, the statement that the victim K and M did not receive a monetary reward from the victim K and M is reliable.

In addition, according to the account statement in the name of F used by the defendant in relation to L andO in relation to the amount of KRW 4 million which the defendant used in substitution for the amount of fraternity payments of L andO, among the amounts of the old accounts Nos. 8, one 2, one 8, one 400,000, the fact that L andO paid the amount to the defendant. Thus, the statement that the defendant substituted the above victim's fraternity payments to O and L cannot be trusted

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charge of breach of trust against the victim K, among the facts charged in the instant case.

(2) The above sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. A. The summary of the facts charged (1) on November 24, 2010, the Defendant is the subject of a number map consisting of 26 foot c. 26 foot c. c. (hereinafter “No. 1”) organized by the J in Seojin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City around November 24, 2010. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22426, Nov. 24, 2010>

(A) On March 24, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 30,90,000 from the fraternity members from the fraternity members, and thus, even if there was a duty to pay KRW 30,90,000,00 to the victim K, which is the cause of the five months designated as the fraternity members on the same day, the Defendant violated his/her duty and did not pay KRW 5,700,000 out of the fraternity to the victim and used it for the purpose of paying the personal damages of the Defendant at that time, and incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the victim.

(B) Around May 24, 2011, the Defendant received KRW 31.5 million from the guidance members at the above center, and thus, the Defendant’s duty to pay KRW 31.5 million to the victim K, which is the cause of the seven fraternity designated to set aside the guidance money on the same day, despite the absence of a duty to pay KRW 31.5 million.