A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

except that this judgment.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the conviction in the original judgment), the Defendant’s “agricultural association-based producer association” against N, T, U, and V (hereinafter “instant agricultural association”).

) The Defendant’s obligation to purchase the purchase price by the standard was partially paid to the Defendant’s money, and the amount was paid to the said union on credit with the Defendant, and the actual representative director was paid the Defendant’s share and the amount of the Defendant’s obligation as to the Defendant’s claim through consultation or resolution by the board of directors with the union officers as the actual representative director (the amount of KRW 466,263,480 out of the total amount of 564,695,400, 5695,400, 920, 98,431,920,

(2) The lower court’s judgment that convicted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the basis of the victim H, L, etc.’s statement on a different premise is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although the Defendant cannot be found to have committed occupational embezzlement on the premise of an unlawful acquisition intent. 2) The sentence (two years of suspended sentence in October) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for

B. In full view of the evidence and circumstances submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the portion of the acquittal portion No. 21, 93, 101, and 102 attached Table No. 21, 93, 102 among the acquittal portion at the time of original adjudication), although it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed the crime of occupational embezzlement by withdrawing money from the deposit account of the farming cooperative of this case and using it at will under the same circumstance as that of the attached Table No. 21, 93, 101, and 102 on the charges, the lower court which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges is erroneous in matters of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. 2)

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(a) the defendant;