However, the defendant did not pass a resolution of the board of directors of the victim's clan but distributed the above compensation by the resolution of the victim's clan, and the resolution of the above council members cannot be seen as being made by a normal resolution because the defendant concealed the amount of compensation distribution in advance.

Even if the resolution of the above church members is legitimate, the amount divided by the defendant, etc. exceeds 50% of the originally distributed amount to K of the clan, and the resolution that the directors of the victim's clan, who is an executive with no remuneration honorary office, make a resolution to distribute the compensation, which is the property of the clan, to their members, not all the members of the clan, constitutes embezzlement that is the most appropriate law.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from May 2005 to December 29, 2010, served as the chairperson of the Victim F clan (hereinafter “victim”) affiliated with D’s clan E (hereinafter “E clan”) and took overall charge of the management of funds, etc.

A clan consisting of three clans, such as victims of a clan, G, and H, is the actual owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J 2760 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) whose name was registered under the name of the non-party I and three of the clans. As the instant land was expropriated in the Korea Land and Housing Corporation around around 2009, it received compensation, and among the victims of a clan in the clans, the said clans were temporarily used on August 27, 2009.