The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, Defendant B and C shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and four months.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts 1) Defendants A’ occupational breach of trust (Article 2014No. 27 subparag. 1-A(a)) (hereinafter “victim HH association”) committed a crime of breach of trust as it did not intend to commit a crime of breach of trust, since it is not for a church to use a total of KRW 850 million through two occasions as indicated in the facts charged, while the work of remodeling was postponed in the course of obtaining a loan for construction expenses for remodeling by the victim HH association, and the Defendant A would bear interest instead of using it as the cost of new construction of a factory.

B) Occupational embezzlements (2014No. 27 1-B)

(B) Since Defendant A’s machines and instruments in this case were not aware of the fact that the collateral security was secured, the amount of KRW 25 million was deposited in the church account and KRW 700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was deposited in L’s church account and the church property was used in repayment as well as KRW 850,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was leased to Defendant A through the resolution of the church conference, and thus, there was no intention to commit a crime of breach of trust.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants on unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant A: imprisonment of two years, Defendant B, and C: imprisonment of one year and four years respectively) is too unreasonable.

2. In the trial of the case, the prosecutor ex officio held that among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendants’ occupational embezzlement charges, the crimes, and the applicable provisions of the Act were added, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission.

On the other hand.