The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Compared to misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, even if the defendant borrowed funds from the door to another person and temporarily rejected the demand for return from the door, it cannot be said that there was no limit on the method of management of the fund from the door. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges of occupational embezzlement, and there was an error in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. Thus, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) Since the defendant committed the forgery of a private document or the uttering of a private document from among the door in whose name the document was prepared, submitted to the court with the consent of the representative and affixed the seal affixed on the letter of agreement, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Decision 1 on the charge of occupational embezzlement 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is limited to the victim’s “Crogate (hereinafter “Crogate”).

From January 1, 2011, ‘A clan member' received KRW 41,040,00 from D, E, and F, which is the cause of the clan in the above door, and the amount of KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000 and interest thereon, which was managed by the defendant, have been engaged in the business of managing funds among the doors of KRW 64,55,00,00 in total.

As above, while engaging in the business of managing funds, the Defendant embezzled KRW 64,50,000,000 among the literature for his/her business purposes, he/she arbitrarily consumeds KRW 1.7 million among them as living expenses, etc. around January 2011.

On January 1, 2012, the Defendant continued to receive a request from a regular meeting of the Assembly to return funds under the above sentence, but already received a loan from G with knowledge of 62,80,000 won out of the above sentence.