A and the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A (one year of imprisonment with prison labor, two years of suspended execution, and two hundred hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant A is too unfased and unreasonable.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor with respect to Defendant B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Unfavorable circumstances as to Defendant A and Prosecutor’s unfair argument of sentencing: The instant crime was committed by Defendant A, the president of the representative meeting of apartment occupants, for the sake of women in the course of performing duties by systematically reducing the public funds of apartment houses in the course of business, and the nature of the crime is very poor, and the amount of embezzlement is relatively large to KRW 63,062,00.

The favorable circumstances shows the attitude of the defendant to recognize and reflect the crime of this case.

Although about 2 years and 5 months have passed from the date of the instant crime, the Defendant returned KRW 63 million out of the amount of embezzlement.

There is no history of criminal punishment for the defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned unfavorable circumstances, including favorable circumstances, the Defendant A’s age and character environment, relationship with the victim, motive means of crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court did not recognize that the sentence imposed on the Defendant A is too heavy or unreasonable as it is deemed unfair.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the court below found Defendant B not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in this case against Defendant B were not proven, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the evidence adopted by the court below, Defendant A's crime in this case