The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The money recorded in the list of crimes attached to the court below (hereinafter “the money of this case”) is the money paid to the defendant, who is the president of the victim’s association, with special subsidies for the organization and operation of the victim C (hereinafter “victim Association”). The money of this case was used through consultation with the chairperson for the disbursement and use of the money of this case, and the defendant did not use it individually.

The instant money is a small amount that does not deviate from the permissible limit in the context of insurance business practices, and most of it was paid to I, etc., and was used in exercising, visiting, etc. the victim association members and their families, and thus, there is a criminal intent to obtain unlawful profits from

shall not be effective.

Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was not using the instant money on an individual basis, the fact that some members of the Victim Association endeavored to pay damages, such as setting up a collateral on real estate owned by the Defendant, and the fact that some members of the Victim Association have maliciously committed the Defendant to leave the election for the chief director, the sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the instant money received as special subsidies for organization and operation within 2% of the revenue premiums shall be deemed as belonging to the victim association. Since the Defendant, who is in the position of keeping the said money in business, voluntarily consumed it as indicated in the lower judgment, there is an intention to acquire unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement against the Defendant.

Therefore, the court below is just in finding guilty of the facts charged of this case.