All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles 1) Defendant (a person guilty of embezzlement of the sales card of the Heart club) operated with multiple equity holders in the form of a business partnership with the Sungwon-gu K Lhowon-gu, Sungwon-si, and the B Age Club in M (hereinafter “B Age Club”), and used the card sales (hereinafter “public money”) of the B Age Club, which was deposited in one account among the equity right holders, as shown in the judgment of the court below, as in the daily table of crime (2) as in the judgment of the court below, deposited in one account among the equity right holders, as in the crime table (2).

However, BNE clubs have been operated in a way that any of the right holders, including the defendant, uses public funds individually and subsequently settle them later.

In addition, the defendant actually deposited a total of KRW 399,9750,000 on December 2014, and the defendant settled all public funds used individually.

Therefore, it is not possible to recognize the defendant's intention of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting this part of the facts charged.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor by the prosecutor (not guilty of embezzlement of money in the name of the BN club rent), it is recognized that the Defendant arbitrarily used the money in the name of BN club rent without the consent of other holders of interest.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too heavy or unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, without the consent of other equity holders.