The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) As evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case, 3 million won was omitted in the process of changing from the village account book in 2009 to the village account book in 2010, and the testimony of the witness F of the lower court that confirmed such omission was all the testimony of the lower court. It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant used 3 million won for personal use. Rather, it is insufficient to recognize that the above 3 million won was used for the above 3 million won for Kimpo-si (hereinafter “the village of this case”).

2) The second agricultural waterway construction works (hereinafter “instant additional construction”)

(2) Prior to the payment of KRW 3 million to G for the instant additional construction costs, the Defendant leased part of the said money to L with the consent of G prior to the payment of KRW 3 million.

Even if they were returned later and paid to G as construction price, they are not used contrary to the purpose of entrustment.

In addition, as long as the defendant used after obtaining G permission, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had the intention of unlawful acquisition.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who served as the head of the village of this case from January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2010 and has been engaged in the management of operating earnings of village reservoirs.

Around December 2009, the Defendant: (a) took over KRW 3 million from the victim’s village residents of the instant case to use the said KRW 3 million for personal purposes in the day of the instant temporary Kimpo-si, while keeping the proceeds of the operation of the U reservoir and the fishing place for the sake of residents; and (b) embezzled the said KRW 3 million for personal purposes.

B. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court arbitrarily stated the amount of KRW 3 million from the balance on the account book as stated in the judgment that the Defendant kept on business.