The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing) was scheduled to be held around March 2004.

In light of the fact that the victims collected money under the above name even though it was confirmed that D was not present at the MM competition, the victims did not properly handle the money collected, and the victims did not present evidentiary documents about it, and there was no fact that such a case was reported to the Steering Committee and has been processed regularly, the defendant's statement that "the victims agreed to raise money in the name of the MM Fund that the victims did not enforce, and the statement of deposit transactions in KRW 5 million is a fake," is not false, and even if it was false, the defendant did not recognize that his statement was false.

It is reasonable to see it as an operating committee member, and it is reasonable to view it as an unlawful because it is for the public interest by speaking in the process of dealing with the agenda item.

Even if the defendant is found guilty, the punishment of the court below (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The judgment of the court below is revealed that ① the victims have walked before the cancellation of the M&D or the absence of D in 2004, ② the victims have forwarded KRW 5 million to the Gangwon-do Branch on March 22, 2004, under the name of the first installment of D on March 2, 2004 at the request of the District Association of Gangwon-do (hereinafter “the Gangwon-do Branch Association”) which is the victim L, and ③ the details of the sexual payment collected in 2004 around December 14, 2007, the case was concluded without any particular issue, and the case was raised through the D Advisory Group convened around December 14, 2007, and then embezzlement of victims again was raised for a considerable period of time by the chairperson of the election campaign in 2015, and the defendant was inappropriate for the victims to conduct the accounting of the amount collected in 204.