All appeals filed by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts is unreasonable since L, a member of the victim’s association, posted a written public notice and a notice that defames the Defendants’ reputation, not merely defames the Defendants, but rather intended to dismiss the Defendants from the officers of the association, and thus, it was thought that the interests of the entire association members were attributed to the Plaintiff’s interest. As such, the attorney fees for the above dispute were disbursed at the expense of the association, the Defendants did not have any criminal intent of occupational embezzlement. 2) Each punishment (two years of the suspended execution of April 2) sentenced by the court of unfair sentencing against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendants denied the crime and did not make efforts to recover damage even if the damage amount in this case reaches KRW 19.8 million, each of the above types of punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below's determination of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the meeting minutes prepared by the victim union holding the representatives' meeting on November 13, 2006 in order to reimburse the legal expenses with union expenses, may be recognized as stating "the victim union's association's right to reply pursuant to subparagraph 1" under the title "the civil, criminal, criminal, criminal, criminal, criminal, or criminal, or criminal complaint against union's officers or the counsel's right to reply according to the complaint against union's union's officers' right to reply." The crime of this case is not a response according to the complaint, but a defendant submitted the counsel's fee when the defendant files a criminal complaint against L as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the defendants' act against the above wording is against the defendants.