All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (legal scenarios, unreasonable sentencing) 1) The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, himself of the D Housing Redevelopment and Improvement Project Association (hereinafter “instant partnership”).

(2) The Defendant, while holding office as the president of the association, believed that he lawfully concluded a housing redevelopment project’s design service contract, construction contract, etc. without going through the resolution of the general meeting of the association of this case, was in violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents. In such a situation, the Defendant paid the attorney’s fee at the expense of operating association in a legal response to the performance of the duties of the association of this case, and the Defendant did not have any intent to obtain unlawful acquisition. Nevertheless, the lower court, which found the Defendant guilty, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) Even if the Defendant was found guilty, the lower court’s punishment

B. A prosecutor (in fact-finding, misunderstanding of facts) 1) Although the Defendant’s expenses for appointment of an attorney-at-law in the expenses for the operation of a cooperative consisting of 5,500,000 won 5,000 won paid by the Defendant from the expenses for the operation of the cooperative, the said money is immediately the Defendant, and the actual complainant is the Defendant, and the said money is eventually embezzled by the Defendant to use it as his personal litigation expenses. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of the instant facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thereby making the judgment unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

(a) For the crime of occupational embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the relevant legal doctrine is the ownership of another person's property that is kept in violation of his/her occupational duty for the purpose of seeking the benefit of himself/herself or a third party.