The judgment below

The guilty part of the defendant and the defendant's embezzlement are acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts (Article 2 of the Criminal Act in the judgment of the court of original instance) - Defendant 1 did not have the intention to commit a crime of breach of trust - the subject who purchased real estate at the time of misunderstanding of facts (Article 2 of the Criminal Act in the judgment of the court of original instance ), and did not directly lend money to M, and the real estate purchase price is merely KRW 85 million, unlike its reasoning. Ultimately, the act of misappropriation against H village (the entire residents) was conducted by M with documents necessary for the transfer of ownership received, and had M make a transfer of ownership under his/her name, and the Defendant did not participate in the transfer of ownership. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (five years of suspended execution for three years) sentenced by the court of unfair sentencing (five years of suspended execution for three years) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts (the part of innocence against the Defendant’s embezzlement) at the lower court on May 19, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 200 million out of KRW 210,08,000,000 for himself as two copies of the Agricultural Cooperative Check with KRW 100,000 won on the same day, and withdrawn KRW 1 billion in KRW 8,000 Korean Bank with KRW 100,000,000 as eight copies of the said Check, and carries the said Check after mixing the said Check. When paying KRW 350,000,000,000 won, the Defendant’s share of KRW 160,000 and KRW 200,000 as indicated in paragraph (1) of the crime in the lower judgment, and deposited them in the account in the name of the Korean Bank with KRW 100,500,000 in KRW 1050,00 in KRW 350,00.