Defendant

All A and prosecutor appeals are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the point of occupational embezzlement) Defendant A loaned money to C, thereby lending money to C through Defendant B, the president of the partnership.

C is only the payment of the consulting cost promised with the Defendant A.

Therefore, Defendant A did not have the intention of embezzlement.

2) The criminal defendant A, who was unfair in sentencing, performed the duties of the chairperson of the promotion committee for a period of five years.

Considering these circumstances, the sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Comprehensively taking account of objective data such as Defendant A and C’s statements and receipts, payment notes, and joint notes of the lower court, Defendant B was aware that Defendant A knew that the withdrawal of partnership funds was made as if the payment was made to Defendant A for consulting expenses and was used individually.

Recognized.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted by the lower court on the ground of appeal by Defendant A’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and the evidence was examined, the Defendant A agreed to receive KRW 90 million from C in return for the receipt of reconstruction implementation project from the beginning of the beginning of the year following the conclusion of the judgment, and the Plaintiff A agreed to receive KRW 90 million from C in return for the receipt of reconstruction implementation project. The Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 60 million in total from the loans granted from the South Korean Agricultural Cooperative under the name of the reconstruction partner B through B, and then C received false receipts as if the Plaintiff received consulting amounting to KRW 60 million from the promotion member’s association.

Therefore, this part of Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

2) The Defendant A acknowledges the crime of taking property in breach of trust in determining the illegal assertion on sentencing.

In addition, there was no history of fine or heavier punishment before the case.

These circumstances are favorable circumstances.

However, the benefits acquired by Defendant A through the crime of taking property in breach of trust of this case and occupational embezzlement is significant.

Nevertheless, up to the trial.