All the judgment below is reversed.

All Defendants publish the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Public Official Election Act and embezzlement (Defendant A) and misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A) 15 types 15 (hereinafter “instant health care organization”) indicated in the facts charged in the instant case

The donation of the Defendant’s donation is a sports H (hereinafter “H”) as the chief director of Ch according to Ch’s self-management instruction of the instant health engine, which the Defendant received around June 2016.

() Since a contract for transfer was concluded with I to make it available for community residents, it cannot be said that it was performed as a performance of the contract, without any ground for disposition. The lower court held that the Defendant offered the instant health equipment from D military units to the military unit on October 19, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant allocated health equipment”).

A) Even if having received a report, it is determined that the crime of embezzlement is established because the health care institution provided the instant health care institution. However, the Defendant was unaware of whether there was the instant allocation official document. The lower court’s determination that the Defendant was aware of the instant allocation official document was attributable to the mistake of believing N’s testimony without credibility. In addition, the lower court’s determination that the Defendant knew of the instant allocation official document was erroneous. 2) In addition, according to the testimony, etc. of related persons, it is obvious that CG institution was donated to H community residents after receiving the official document under the name of I organization.

At least until J takes over the instant health equipment, the Defendant knew that the instant health equipment was provided to H villages.

Nevertheless, the court below found, without any particular evidence, that the defendant intentionally donated the health center of this case to the J. J. which operates the health center of this case. This error is also erroneous.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of both the violation of the Public Official Election Act and embezzlement against the defendant under the premise that the defendant voluntarily donated the instant health care organization against the will of the DJ.