A. Defendant B 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the embezzlement of KRW 16,565,842) (the embezzlement of KRW 16,55,842) had been employed as the leader of the D fishing village fraternity, and there was benefits to be paid from the D fishing village fraternity. Defendant B was used for personal purposes of KRW 16,565,842, out of KRW 17 million withdrawn from the 17 million account of the fishing village fraternity in mind that he received the said money from the fishing village fraternity, and there was no intention of unlawful acquisition. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was an intention of unlawful acquisition, and the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The lower court’s sentence of fine (two million won) declared by the Defendant on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the misunderstanding of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part in the judgment of the court), the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (A) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (A) against Defendant A, and the relation between fishing village fraternity belonging to the head of the cooperative in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (A) and the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (A), the relation between the fishery village fraternity belonging to the head of the cooperative, which is the head of the Q cooperative, and the relation between the fishery village fraternity that provided money and goods, the amount of money and goods provided, and the details, timing, and methods of receiving money and goods, etc., a sum of KRW 120 million stated in this part of the facts charged which was delivered to Defendant A by the D fishing

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on each of the charges on the ground that “this part of the money cannot be readily determined as having a quid pro quo relationship with Defendant A’s president.” Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.