The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor and fines of KRW 15,000,000) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below denied the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Misappropriation of Trust) but this court recognized it and reflected his mistake, and the defendant repaid the total amount of loans to the victim DD association (the actual debtor of the loan implemented in violation of the provisions of the victim DD association (hereinafter referred to as "victim D association") and thus did not actually incur any damage to the victim D association. The defendant returned 15,00,000 won received in consideration of the above loan from B to B; the victim D association wanted the defendant to be a preference against the defendant; the defendant wanted the defendant; on June 23, 2016, the defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Indecent Conduct in Occupational Force) at Suwon District Court on July 1, 2016; on July 20, 2017, the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive with respect to the crime of equality and the latter part of Article 317 of the Criminal Act.

However, the defendant, as the chief director of the victimD association, executed a loan of KRW 900 million to B in violation of the internal rules of the victim D association, caused the risk of damage to the victim D association, and in the process, received KRW 15,000,000 in return for the loan from B to the account in the name of the wife, and received money and valuables in relation to his duties as an executive or employee of the financial institution, and pretended to receive money in relation to the acquisition of criminal proceeds in light of the circumstances, contents and attitudes of the crime of this case, and the credibility of the victim D association is significant due to the defendant's crime of this case.