The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the circumstances delineated below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational breach of trust, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) There is no occupational duty to inform the Defendant of the amount of cash liquidation paid by the D Association (hereinafter “Union”) to the non-standing members (hereinafter “non-standing members”), and there is no occupational duty to inform the other non-standing members of the amount of cash liquidation of each non-standing member, and there is no obligation to inform the Defendant of the amount of cash liquidation of each non-standing member to the other non-standing members.

(2) Although there was no pre-determined cash settlement amount, since the victims concluded a contract for the purchase and sale with each other and confirmed the cash settlement amount, there is no property damage to the victims, and even if there was an allocation standard for 15.3 billion won, it cannot be applied to 16.3 billion won, so there is no causation between the defendant's benefit and the victims' loss, and the amount of damages cannot be determined.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle, the following facts can be acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

㈎ 조합의 활동에 불만을 가진 조합원 30여명(피고인의 부 E 포함)은 2007. 11.경 가칭 ‘D사업 정상화를 위한 비상대책위원회’(이하 ‘비대위’라 한다)를 구성하였고, 이후 비대위는 피고인, O(G의 남편), F 3인을 대표로 선정하였는데 그 중 피고인이 실질적인 업무를 맡아서 진행하였다.

㈏ 비대위는 2008. 3.경 서울행정법원에 조합을 상대로 관리처분계획 취소소송을 제기하여 2008. 9.경 승소판결을 받았고, 2009. 7.경 서울고등법원에서 조합의 항소를 기각하는 판결을 받았으며,...