The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant is unable to submit objective evidence to prove that he paid personal funds to E, the statement of E with the same interest is difficult to believe, and the witness O and AH’s statement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the Defendant deposited the funds of the Association into the private account of M, the lower court determined that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant spent or returned the funds of the Association in personal account. However, the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition is recognized by legal principles. Thus, the lower court’s determination that the instant funds were used in relation to the video system or used the funds as expenses related to the integrated business system is inconsistent with the details and financing flow. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the fact-finding.

(c)

In the facts charged No. 3, the Defendant’s ordinary research expenses used by the Defendant do not exist under the provisions of the Association, and the Defendant withdraws the remaining funds on the ground that the budget remains, and used them individually, and the Defendant used the funds used by the Vice-Governor to cover the funds used in the Section after becoming the president, and used them in a place unrelated to the Association’s business activities, such as using the funds used in the Section for the president’s activities, etc., so the Defendant’s activities constitute occupational embezzlement, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Article 1 (1) 6 of the facts charged in the instant case is pending in the trial of the public prosecutor.