A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and minutes of the extraordinary meeting of G fishing village fraternity (the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting concerning the gathering of the village of AG J, which were submitted by Defendant No. 3 on April 12, 2017, the second trial date of the lower judgment).

hereinafter referred to as “pro rata 3”) is not a ex post facto death, but a gathering of the ex-post death in H fishing ground was delegated to L and M through a resolution of the general assembly of G fishing village fraternities (hereinafter referred to as “fishing village fraternity”) like the above J fishing ground.

Expenses incurred in managing L and fishing grounds borne by M and collecting salk shall be excluded from the amount of breach of trust. The expenses incurred in managing L and fishing grounds and collecting salk shall be excluded from the amount of breach of trust.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of fact is not a trust by the owner of diving machines to a fishing village fraternity, but actually owned by the fishing village fraternity.

The defendant has no intention of embezzlement.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

(c)

According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor (Defendant A) by the Prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant, as a fishing village fraternity, obtained profits from E by subjecting the Defendant to the interim distribution stage that is not entirely unnecessary, and suffered losses from the fishing village fraternity.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. In the judgment of the court below on the amendment of a bill of indictment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to delete the part of the charge of innocence "at least 30,000 won per unit price (per 20 kg per unit price) at the time of the judgment of the court below and permitted it at the court below."

Therefore, it is difficult for the court below to determine the amendment of the indictment above.

Since only the distribution unit price portion of the judgment does not reach the extent to which the basic element of the facts charged actually affects, the subject of the judgment cannot be deemed to have been modified (the facts charged).