The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

provided that this ruling has become final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the process of evading a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, the FIE (hereinafter “instant church”) was liable for a loan obligation of KRW 235 million against M, and a part of the loan from the fisheries cooperatives (hereinafter “the fisheries cooperatives”) as a repayment of that obligation was paid to M as part of the loan from the fisheries cooperatives (hereinafter “the fisheries cooperatives”), and thus, it does not have committed a fraudulent obligation or concealed property.

B) Since occupational embezzlement: (a) KRW 8 million, which transferred to theO on December 24, 2009, was discharged from the obligation to theO of the instant church; and (b) KRW 50 million, which withdrawn in cash on the same day, was disbursed as the instant church guard service cost, the Defendant did not embezzled the said money amount of KRW 58 million; (b) the lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (one month of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the event a person who borrows real estate from a misunderstanding financial institution as security has a duty to notify the financial institution of the fact that there is a person who exercises a lien on the secured real estate, and at the time when the Defendant was granted a loan from the Suhyup to secure the instant church building as security, it was clearly aware that there was a person who legitimately exercises a lien on the part of the first floor of the instant church building at the time of obtaining the loan from the Suhyup. Therefore, the Defendant’s failure to notify it to the Suhyup constitutes a deception of fraud.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles was insufficient. In light of the records, the above judgment of the lower court is justifiable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts as alleged in the grounds for appeal. This part of the grounds for appeal is without merit.