The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for one year, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (a year of imprisonment, additional collection) is too unreasonable.

B. In relation to the crime of occupational embezzlement, Defendant B (1) and misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant, under the direction of Defendant A, created activity expenses by using trade funds of the victim trade union in an altered manner, but did not privately use them, and delivered them to A for the use of the victim trade union. As such, there was no embezzlement of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition, nor did he/she receive his/her instruction in the upper name return relationship with A, and there was no conspiracy with A.

With respect to the crime of taking property in breach of trust, the defendant has not given a exclusive authority to J, and there has not been a conspiracy with A.

However, the court below which found all of the charges guilty has erred by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence of the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

F The Defendant did not assist the Defendant in committing the crime of occupational embezzlement, and did not intend to help the Defendant, because it was merely a return of the remaining amount while the victim’s overseas training team kept and executed funds created to jointly use during the training period.

Although the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(d)

Defendant

H The punishment of the lower court (2,00,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are unfavorable to the Defendant.

In addition to embezzlement of special subsidies as the chairperson of the victim trade union, the Defendant created the “expenses for activities” by using a code, such as influorating the transaction amount of the victim trade union or calculating excessive withdrawal equipment, under the direction of Defendant B, who is the secretary general.