The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The gist of Defendant’s grounds for appeal: The Defendant, on the first trial of mistake of facts, withdrawn the allegation of unfair sentencing.

Some of the clans have raised an objection to the agenda on which they pay litigation costs, etc. to the defendant, but the number of clans including the defendant has not been fewer than several, and the clans including the defendant met the quorum with the power of attorney from the majority of the clans, and all the resolutions of the clans have not been adopted by the clans general meeting.

Therefore, since the defendant thought that the above agenda was legally resolved and withdrawn the money as stated in the judgment below, the defendant cannot be recognized as the intention of embezzlement.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant was elected as the president of the Victim B clan from January 2, 2016 to December 2017 and has overall control over the management of the property of the clan.

In 2016, without obtaining the consent of the members of the clan at the ordinary meeting of the victims, the Defendant had been willing to consume the property of the clan for personal purposes, such as the name of lawsuit and personal treatment expenses.

From January 2016, the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn KRW 784,00 on December 20, 2016 and embezzled the funds of the clan from around January 201 to the Agricultural Cooperative (C) in the name of the victim of the clan in the course of business.

B. In full view of the fact that the Defendant did not go through the resolution method through a large number of hands, etc., and that the counterclaims raised an objection against the Defendant’s unilateral declaration of violation, despite the Defendant’s unilateral declaration of violation, the Defendant unilaterally declared the agenda as if the case was resolved, the lower court determined that the Defendant could have been aware of the fact that the above resolution procedure could be illegal at least, the money as stated in the facts charged is arbitrarily