A. An erroneous determination of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and incomplete deliberation, the Chown was established on July 1981. The original affiliation and name was “Korea Ehynam Association” and was changed into “Korea Ehynam Association affiliated with the Neh class Eh class En class Eh class Eh class En group” and “ Ch class Eh class affiliated with the Korea Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh class Eh group” and P retired from office as a temporary Eh class Em

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the “Korea Egymnas Association affiliated with the Korea Egymnas Association,” the representative of H, is an organization separate from the “Korea Egymnas Association,” which is established in Q as the name of “Korea Egymnas Association,” and that the organization formed on February 1, 2015 and approved by the head of the Gangwon-dong District Office, re-established the “Korea Egymnas Association,” which is the first “Korea Egymnas Association,” but it cannot be accepted as a assertion without merit, as seen earlier.

In this context, the term “Chown” was established on July 1981 as the term “Korea Empic Association”, and its affiliation and name was changed to the term “Chown belonging to the Korea Empic Association”, and H or P refers to a church, the representative of which is H or P.

He obtained a loan of KRW 250 million from the Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperative to a building owned by D church located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) as collateral and became final and conclusive as a crime of occupational breach of trust (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2013Da2451, 2014No947, Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1779). Of the profits obtained from occupational breach of trust, he paid KRW 11 million to the defendant as the purchase price individually to purchase the apartment right from the defendant.

Therefore, the above KRW 1 billion is not the money of the C church, but the money of H. H, and H and the defendant do not have the status of keeping the above KRW 1 billion as entrusted by the C church.