A. The embezzlement of the 35 million won, among the embezzlement of the contribution money to the construction of the church set forth in the crime No. 1 of the judgment below as stated in the judgment of the court below, is the money contributed by the members of the church building with the defendant and the defendant after March 24, 2013, and thus, it is not the ownership of the victim C church, and thus, it does not constitute embezzlement.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (1) and the prosecutor, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the facts charged, although it was found guilty of this part of the charges.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the circumstances cited by the lower court in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the KRW 35 million, which the Defendant withdrawn from the Nonghyup account in the name of the victim church (E; hereinafter “the instant agricultural cooperative account”) after March 24, 2013, appears to have been managed from the Korean church, which is the new members of the victim church, rather than the money contributed by the Defendant and the members of the Defendant. Even though the said money is the money contributed by the Defendant and the Defendant, if some of the members lose their status as the members of the church after leaving the church, then the property of the previous church should be collectively owned by the remaining members of the church (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da676505, May 27, 2010, 2006). Thus, the Defendant’s use of the money constituted embezzlement of KRW 3605,605,000,000.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just, and the defendant's above assertion is not justified.

① Money withdrawn by the Defendant was deposited in the agricultural cooperative account of this case, and the agricultural cooperative of this case.