All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. The summary of the reasons for appeal is that each sentence (Defendant A: 6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence, 1 year and 6 months of suspended sentence, 3 years of suspended sentence, 6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) declared by the court below to the Defendants is too unfasible and unfair.

2. The judgment of Defendant B, as the chief executive officer of the victim-friendly council, reduced the selling price of real estate in the course of handling the real estate by delegation from the injured party's third party's business, laid down the purchase price, and embezzled 360 million won in total, which is the difference. In addition, Defendant C acquired stolen goods by receiving KRW 10 million from Defendant C, which is part of the amount acquired by Defendant C as a result of the crime of occupational embezzlement. In light of the method, content, and scale of damage, etc., the crime is considerably poor.

In addition, Defendant A, the president of the Korea Victim-Friendly Council, acquired stolens by receiving KRW 50 million, which is part of the money that he obtained from Defendant B through the crime of occupational embezzlement. Defendant C, as the general secretary of the Korea Victim-Friendly Council, entrusted by the injured party with the duty of income tax transfer, embezzled KRW 31 million of the difference in the fees for the certified tax accountant in the course of handling the transferred income tax. In light of the method, content, and scale of damage, etc. of the crime, the nature of the crime is not good.

Therefore, it is necessary to strictly punish the Defendants.

However, the defendants are both aware of the crime of this case, the damage was recovered by returning all the damage amount caused by the crime of acquiring stolen property by Defendant A to the victim's family council, Defendant B returned 160 million won out of the damage amount to the victim's family council in the investigation process and the original trial. The remaining damage was recovered by returning additional KRW 210 million out of the damage amount to the victim's family council. Defendant C returned 14 million to the victim's family council in the first instance trial, and only agreed with the victim by returning it to the victim's family council. The defendants C did not have any record of punishment for the same kind of crime, and they were punished exceeding the fine.