All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the judgment of the court below is that the defendants of this case are members of the E clan (hereinafter referred to as the "members of the clan").

From October 20 to October 20, 1995, the Defendants embezzled the above real estate by selling the above real estate to I for profits by selling it for the purpose of a clan title trust after obtaining the title trust from the above clan (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the intention of selling it from the above clan 2,337 square meters (hereinafter “F 2,337 square meters” in the judgment of the court below), G 2,340 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), which was in possession of the said clan from the above clan, while Defendant A was in office as a general manager of the above clan. On February 21, 2009, the Defendants embezzled the above real estate from the mutual Buddhist real estate located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si to 193,00,000 won.

The lower court found the Defendants guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of each of the Defendants’ respective legal statements, the witness J’s legal statement, and the police interrogation protocol against K.

For the following reasons, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of embezzlement due to mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine on the gist of the grounds of appeal.

Since the clan members knew that the real estate of this case was owned by a clan, and that prior to this case, Defendant A had been loaned the real estate of this case as collateral to the clans, Defendant A did not have an intention to dispose of the real estate of this case since it was problematic within the clans.

In addition, since Defendant A received the title trust of the instant real estate from a clan and disbursed a large amount of expenses, it was thought that part of the purchase price of the instant real estate was appropriated for the expenses incurred by Defendant A and returned to a clan. In fact, Defendant A could not be deemed to have expressed an intention of unlawful acquisition, since Defendant A returned the remainder, excluding KRW 20 million, out of the purchase price of the instant real estate

Defendant

A has already been secured two times on the instant real estate.