All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the judgment of the court below No. 1), the Chairperson of the Self-Governing Center of D University demanded a separate amount of KRW 4 million in addition to the advertising fee of KRW 4 million, and the Defendant, after explaining the request of the Chairperson to the members, obtained the consent of the members as advertising expenses, and actually delivered the amount equivalent to the difference to the Self-Governing Chairperson. The Defendant did not acquire money by deceiving the victims.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the second instance court (one million won in penalty) that was unfair in sentencing (as to the judgment of the second instance) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for consolidated examination, this Court tried to examine each appeal case against the judgment of the court below jointly, and each of the offenses in the judgment of the court below should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent offenses under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

B. In addition to the amendment of the indictment, the prosecutor changed the facts charged in the judgment of the first instance court after the remanding of the case as stated in the column of “amended facts charged” under the following following, and applied the name of the crime from “fraud” to “business embezzlement” under Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act, “Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 356 and Article 355(1) of the Criminal Act,” respectively, and the subject of the judgment is changed by this court’s permission. In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

The revised charges charged by the Defendant is to manage the user fees, etc. of the victim’s business conference with the chairperson of the victim’s “Epic association” (hereinafter “victim’s business association”) comprised of the operators of the neighboring commercial buildings of the D University.