A. Defendant 1) With respect to the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified investigation documents by the board of directors’ resolution under the above Article, the Defendant was delegated in advance by the directors K, directors M, and auditors of the regional housing association B (hereinafter “victim association”) and did not forge the resolution of the board of directors of this case.

B) On the part of the crime of occupational breach of trust, the judgment of the court below, unlike the judgment of the court below, had the authority to employ a paid employee for the defendant, and the act of employing S and conducting the business affairs of the victim union and paying wages cannot be deemed as an act in violation of the occupational duties as the president of the association. (2) The defendant merely received the benefits reasonably paid to S at his own expense, and merely received a return from D, and thus cannot be deemed as the intent of the crime of occupational breach of trust or unlawful acquisition, and it cannot be deemed that there was damage to the victim association. (2) The punishment imposed by the court below (4 months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of social service order, and 80 hours of social service order) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the fact that the short-term employment contract in the name of prosecutor C was used in the Defendant’s criminal act, C did not have worked in the victim’s association and did not perform any act as a member, and C did not know how the fund was used through the above short-term employment contract, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges, even though it did not recognize the Defendant’s constructive consent as the nominal owner in preparing the short-term employment contract in this case.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below and the trial of the court below regarding the forgery of private documents and the uttering of falsified investigation documents in accordance with the above Article of the first board of directors resolution on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles