The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

Defendant

A does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant A1’s attempted fraud among the facts charged in the instant case by mistake and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant filed an application for withdrawal of the deposit jointly owned with the delegation of 322 residents who participated in the assembly. Since the aforementioned residents are the co-owners of the regional development fund paid pursuant to the agreement, it cannot be said that the Defendant filed an application for withdrawal of the deposit to his creative cooperation with their delegation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of attempted fraud among the facts charged against the defendant and erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant C1) Fact-finding, misunderstanding of legal principles, and the Defendant without reason was prosecuted as a joint principal offender in the crime of embezzlement, and there is no specific statement in the facts charged that the Defendant has taken any action or position.

There is no trace of embezzlement by the Defendant, and there is no conspiracy of embezzlement with the Defendant A, B.

In particular, regardless of the amount of damage compensation, the 15.3 million won used as operating expenses of the fishing village fraternity is the money that the residents supported the fishing village fraternity. Therefore, even if used as operating expenses of the fishing village fraternity, the compensation for damage was embezzled.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or omitting the reasoning.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant had attempted to defraud money by deceiving the creative compromise with the intent of deception.

It is difficult to see, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is true.