All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 3, 2013, the part concerning the loan of KRW 2 million around July 3, 2013 as to the pertinent cooperative movement project fund was awarded a large-scale exhibition and convention project and subsidized for the purpose of a cooperative movement project in the form of a division among its members. As such, the Defendant lent KRW 2 million out of the instant cooperative movement project fund limited to the above purposes to I is out of the above use and constitutes an occupational embezzlement, and thus, it constitutes an occupational embezzlement, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

B) It was proved that the Defendant used the part of the cost of using KRW 32,456,431 with business expenses from January 7, 2013 to July 11, 2013 for the victim E (hereinafter “victim E”).

It is difficult to see that this part of the expenses was personally used by the defendant.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty on the other hand, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentence that is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is so excessive that it is unreasonable.

B. Defendant: (a) Of the lower judgment of the lower court by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine, the Defendant paid G benefits within the scope of KRW 60 million for the personnel expenses of employees set out in the J (24 pages of the trial record) “A” (24 pages of the trial record) and the auditor of the Victim Union prepared a written confirmation confirming the Defendant’s financial spending details including the Defendant’s payment of G (31 page of the trial record). In so doing, it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intent of unlawful acquisition, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The following are acknowledged based on the circumstances presented by the lower court concerning the conviction and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.