A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In relation to the guilty part of the judgment below, the Defendant requested D to subsidize travel expenses of KRW 300,000,000,000,000 from the food expenses of the union members, and did not receive KRW 300,000 from the victim’s union expenses.

The above food expenses are money that can be used exclusively if only four members of the old-age union agree to provide the welfare expenses to the old-age union in C, and the defendant obtained the consent of the old-age union at the time of receiving the travel expenses.

B. In light of the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and Sentencing)’s status, period of crime, D, and G’s respective statements, the Defendant may fully recognize the fact that the Defendant embezzled the money set forth in Article 1 of the facts charged.

2) Since the guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the not guilty part are related to a single crime, the judgment of the court below shall not be judged separately.

3) The sentence (one hundred thousand won) imposed by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. An ex officio prosecutor filed an application for modification of an indictment with respect to the deletion of “in collusion with D” in paragraph 1 of the facts charged at the trial, and this court permitted this and changed the subject of the adjudication.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below may no longer be maintained (as examined in the following 4-B(b) above, since the facts charged in this case are related to a single crime, the judgment of the court below is reversed in its entirety). Despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the defendant and the prosecutor's misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are still included in the subject of the judgment of the court below.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the above argument in the lower court, and the lower court rejected the above argument by explaining the grounds for its judgment.

B. It is newly revealed that the appellate court has an objective reason to affect the formation of documentary evidence during the hearing process.