All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (as to Defendant 1’s non-statement such as occupational breach of trust and public electronic records, events such as false electronic records, etc., city and residential environment records, violation of the law) ① The commercial building of this case was located beneath the lower part of the entrance screen of the underground parking lot, and thus, the commercial building of this case was located under the rectangular structure, and thus, was not sold in lots due to lack of utility value as a store, and thus, was decided on November 13, 2013 at the joint meeting of the union directors/representativess, to sell to the Defendant, who is the head of the association, at the market price. Accordingly, the registration of ownership preservation was completed under the name of the Defendant, and the registration of ownership preservation was not completed without

② Since there was no operational expenses of the association, there was a talk in the meeting of the board of representatives that “to borrow and use money with the knowledge of practical achievements,” the Defendant did not call a general meeting on the ground that he did not go through a resolution of the general meeting because he borrowed money from time to time and passed a resolution by the board of representatives.

In addition, since there is no money in the union, there is no personnel to adjust the details of entry and withdrawal of money because there is no personnel to employ employees, so the relevant documents were not made public because they did not prepare the details of entry and withdrawal and kept only the receipt.

However, the court below found all of the facts charged guilty. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one-month suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-misunderstanding (as to occupational embezzlement), the Defendant committed occupational embezzlement as long as he arbitrarily withdraws and uses the funds of the victim association kept by the Defendant even though the Defendant had already been repaid even if the external appearance or actual claim was already made, as if the Defendant had a claim against the victim association.