The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The I Countermeasure Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) that the Defendant had been the Chairperson is in a consignment relationship with the residents of the above two villages on behalf of the F Village and G village residents in Gyeyang-si E, Yangsan-si. Since the Defendant paid a subsidy of KRW 75 million to a third party who has aided the Defendant to receive subsidies in accordance with a lawful resolution of the Committee, the Defendant’s act of withdrawing KRW 75 million is deemed not an embezzlement, but an act of embezzlement. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of all the circumstances, including the fact that civil disputes related to P Village, which can be said to be a substantial victim of the instant case of unfair sentencing, have been resolved smoothly, and the defendant served for village residents for a long time, and has old age, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant (two years of suspended sentence in October) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the prosecutor examined "Fraud" in the name of the crime in the first instance, and Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act in the applicable provisions of law, and Article 2 of the facts charged as follows.

C. (1) An application for permission to change the indictment which adds the same content as the entry in paragraph (1) to the conjunctive, and this court permitted this and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the primary facts charged by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles (1) Summary of the primary facts charged is the F Village E in Gyeyang-si.