All appeals filed by B and prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendant B (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of sentencing, misunderstanding of facts), Defendant B’s withdrawal or transfer of deposits as stated in the judgment of the court below. However, Defendant B’s withdrawal or transfer of deposits with D’s comprehensive disposal right as the adopted child, and there was no deception of the National Federation of Victims Agricultural Cooperatives (hereinafter “victim bank”) (hereinafter “victim bank”) (hereinafter “Defendant B’s act”), even if Defendant B’s act was found guilty, the lower court’s sentencing (one year of suspended execution in two years) was too excessive and unfair (Sentencing). (B) Defendant B was found not guilty of the facts that Defendant B was not capable of being misunderstanding that Defendant B was unable to make a normal judgment due to dementia on July 18, 2014, before Defendant B’s adoption. The lower court acquitted Defendant B of the facts that Defendant C was not misunderstanding of the aforementioned legal principles as to deposit money with the National Federation of Victims (hereinafter “Defendant A’s mental and physical disorder”) and that Defendant C’s withdrawal of deposits with the same part of the facts charged.

A. 1) Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the facts charged in the relevant criminal trial, and that the conviction is true to the extent that there is no room for a judge to make reasonable doubt.