The judgment below

The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s charges No. 1-C.

Part 15 of the certificate of receipt of actual cost stated in the port (hereinafter “certificate of receipt of actual cost of this case”) is not owned by the association but owned by the defendant, regardless of the association, that the defendant received reference documents from K and L. Even though the certificate of receipt of actual cost of this case is owned by the association, Defendant B, the president of the association, was aware of the certificate of receipt of actual cost of this case and ordered the defendant to destroy it to the first police officer in early 2010. As such, since the association renounced ownership of the certificate of receipt of actual cost of this case, it cannot be concluded that

B. The Defendants’ occupational breach of trust in relation to business promotion expenses (1) The lower court determined that it was difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered losses to the Plaintiff since there was no evidence to support the fact that the amount paid to N in the name of business promotion expenses was not necessary or excessive. However, the Defendants entered into a business service contract with N in a higher amount than necessary, and raised funds by receiving a refund of the difference from N after concluding the service contract with N in a higher amount, and some of the funds were appropriated for the overseas travel expenses of public relations personnel belonging to N, and thus, it should be viewed that the damage to the

(2) Defendant B, a person who was the president of the instant association via the president of the promotion committee, and when theO delivered cash to Defendant A, he was together with Defendant A, and Defendant A without the prior approval of Defendant B, the president of the association.

In light of the fact that it is impossible to perform the act described in the paragraph, it is recognized that Defendant B conspired with Defendant A.

B) The Defendants were not guilty on the grounds that they made false statements in the attendance book (1) and they were not guilty on the grounds that they were not able to believe the O’s statement, but according to the statements of public relations personnel, public relations personnel did not speak at the weekend, but they were not on the weekend.