The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant’s business property custodian is the E Association, an incorporated association (hereinafter “Association”).

(2) As the Defendant is not in the position of a custodian of property, it cannot be punished for the crime of occupational embezzlement, which is an offense of occupational embezzlement. Even if the Defendant was indicted as N and accomplice, and some facts charged as accomplices are recognized, the Defendant is merely an offense of embezzlement, which is not an offense of embezzlement. (2) Whether the establishment of a comprehensive crime is established and the part concerning occupational embezzlement of subsidies and the part concerning occupational embezzlement of business promotion expenses is not a single offense

Therefore, the statute of limitations for each of the criminal facts on the crime list (2) 1 through 6 (from April 14, 2003 to July 30, 2007) in the first instance judgment, among the criminal facts on the "business embezzlement" in the crime list (2) of the crime committed in the court of first instance, the sum of KRW 65 million in total, and the sum of KRW 168 million in total among the criminal facts on the "business embezzlement" 2 of the crime list in the first instance judgment, from January 2005 to December 2007.

3) The association with the portion of the subsidy occupational embezzlement is the Franchis Association (hereinafter “Frans Association”).

(4) The Defendant received subsidies from the Association’s Secretary General in the part of occupational embezzlement of indirect official business expenses after deliberation by the Association’s representative general meeting and the board of directors, and used them for business purposes. The Defendant received the monthly fixed amount of indirect official business expenses and disbursed them in the course of business.

Therefore, the Defendant did not embezzled the Association’s budget.

5) The Defendant in the part of occupational embezzlement of information costs did not personally use the information cost in collusion with N. The Defendant cannot be held liable for the information cost that N personally used. 6) Reserve funds for occupational embezzlement of reserve funds are the Defendant’s individual.