All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, ① the Defendant returned the village development fund from the members of the Village Development Committee to E with consent or constructive consent.

② At the time when the Defendant returned KRW 20 million to E, if requested in the village later, E agreed to offer it on the road, and then E actually returned the above money to the village, so there was no property damage to village residents. If the Defendant disposed of the village development fund independently without a meeting with development members, it is an invalid juristic act, and thus, the crime of occupational breach of trust is not established.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of four million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The lower court’s determination on “claim 1” was duly adopted and investigated as follows: (i) was a member of the Village Development Committee, i.e., a member

I appeared as a witness in the court of the court below, and stated to the effect that E returned KRW 20 million to the defendant, and that he did not go through lawful enforcement procedures, such as going through a resolution procedure by the Village Development Committee (No. 29 to 31 of the trial record). He also appeared as a witness in the court of the court below and stated to the effect that he did not go through legitimate procedures (the trial record No. 52, 53 of the trial record), while returning the Village Development Fund, and he did not go through legitimate procedures (the trial record No. 52, 53 of the development committee). He stated to the effect that he did not go through legitimate procedures (the trial record No. 52, 52, and 53 of the development committee).

“Evidence No. 1 (Evidence No. 310, 311);