The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The indirect official business expenses that the Defendant received from the Victim B Association (hereinafter “victim Association”) are determined to be paid through lawful procedures, such as a resolution of the board of directors of the said Association and a resolution of the representative general meeting of delegates, and the Defendant used them for the Victim Association.

Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an intention to obtain illegal profits from the defendant's receipt of the above money.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (a fine of four million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. From February 20, 2012, the Defendant served as the president of the Victim Association from around February 20, 2012, and took overall control of the affairs of the Victim Association, including administrative and accounting affairs, etc.

Around February 29, 2012, the president of the Victim Association was not paid any remuneration and the expenses necessary for performing his duties can be paid as actual expenses. However, the defendant approved the disbursement resolution prepared by 1.2 million won in the office of the Victim Association with 200,000 won, and used 60,000 won out of the difference between the amount stated as sports ground management expenses and the actual sports ground management expenses for personal purposes for business promotion expenses from that time to May 2017, the defendant received 64 times in total as business promotion expenses and embezzled the amount of money owned by the Victim Association owned by the victim for personal purposes each time.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in full view of the evidence as indicated in its reasoning.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the intent to illegally obtain the relevant legal doctrine.