The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged and misunderstanding the fact that the defendant convicted the defendant, even though the victim did not make a speech about LM and I's embezzlement of farmland direct payments at the time and place recorded in the facts charged, there was no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court duly adopted and examined the allegation of mistake of facts, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court: (a) reported victims to the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office on the ground of occupational embezzlement, violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, Violation of the Rice Income Preservation Act, and Violation of the Farmland Act; and (b) reported victims F and G on the ground that the public prosecutor in charge was not suspected of suspicion on April 25, 2012; (c) the victim H made a non-prosecution disposition on the part of the victims F and G; (d) the victim H made a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of occupational embezzlement, violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and violation of the Rice Income Preservation Act; and (e) the victim H investigation agency and the lower court stated that “the victim, including the Defendant, made a non-prosecution disposition, before the end of the session of the board of directors, and divided them into the members of the lower court.”