A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the attorney fee paid by the Defendant is not related to the Defendant’s individual criminal case, but paid as advisory fees related to D Association Branch (hereinafter “Dongdong Branch”) and as such, it was decided by the general meeting to disburse attorney’s fees. As such, there was the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition and embezzlement.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, as to the assertion that the attorney fee of this case was paid as the advisory fee of the Dongjak-gu Branch, the attorney fee of this case is not paid as the legal advisory fee for the affairs of the Dongjak-gu Branch, but as the defendant paid for the criminal case of the defendant, the above assertion by the defendant is not accepted.

A) After search was conducted on April 22, 2009 at the National Police Agency’s special investigation division, the E Federation and the Dongjak-gu branch office on seizure, the Defendant was investigated as the person under investigation at the police on June 5, 2009, June 9, 2009, and September 29, 2009, and the police applied for detention warrant against the Defendant to the prosecution on September 8, 2009. The Prosecutor dismissed the police’s application for detention warrant on September 10, 2009.

The Defendant was also investigated by the prosecution five times from January 12, 2010 to March 17, 2010. Ultimately, the Defendant was indicted on May 17, 2010, and subsequently, on February 21, 2012, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000,00 for criminal facts, such as “the publication of X’s name and press check, interfered with X’s business, and embezzled the subsidies of the Union granted under the Y, for any purpose other than the designated purpose, while serving as the secretary of the D Association,” and on February 21, 2012.