The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (five months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principle, which acquitted the Defendant on the charge of the breach of trust of this case, even though the Defendant’s failure to pay the fraternity to the fraternity, such as the charge of the breach of trust of this case, constitutes a crime of breach of trust.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the legal principles

A. The lower court’s judgment did not constitute a crime of breach of trust on the grounds that the Defendant does not constitute a person who administers another’s business on the following grounds.

The decision was determined.

1) The Defendant’s business of the guidance of the charge of breach of trust (hereinafter “the instant guidance”) is not the other party’s business but the other party’s business.

2) Even if the Defendant’s business as the subject of the instant guidance is his own business and at the same time constitutes another’s business, it shall be interpreted only to the Defendant’s own business in favor of him.

3) The Supreme Court precedents hold that when a fraternity share holder receives an advance payment, the administrative affairs of the system will be converted to another person’s business. This is a violation of the principle of clarity of the constituent requirements and a violation of legal stability.

B. A precedent established that, in a case where the party deliberation and decision-making shareee violates his duty and did not pay it to the designated fraternity without any justifiable reason even though it was collected from the fraternity members (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do221, Mar. 8, 1994; 2009Do3143, Aug. 20, 209). The instant fraternity is established to constitute a crime of breach of trust in relation to the designated fraternity, barring any other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do221, Mar. 8, 1994; 2009Do