The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The defense counsel of the defendant who misleads the defendant as to the facts of appeal stated on the second page of the grounds for appeal that the defendant is not in the position of custodian of the F Committee to which the instant church belongs (hereinafter “F Committee”) under the title “whether or not the defendant is a custodian of the F Committee’s funds.” This part also appears to be a separate reason for appeal.

However, according to the facts charged and the facts constituting the crime of the court below, it is evident that the custodian of the F Committee Fund is E, and the defendant is indicted as a conspiracy with E and is convicted in the court below.

In this part of the appeal, “The custodian of the FF Fund has been in charge of the general affairs of the Committee even in the facts charged of this case.”

E is specified in E.

“The entry is written.”

According to this, the reason why the defendant's defense counsel stated above is that the defendant does not have the status as a custodian and that the defendant does not have the status as a principal offender in the next stage of logic.

Therefore, the defendant does not judge whether the defendant is a custodian of the FF Fund separately.

(1) In light of the following: (a) the status and role of the Defendant and E (the Defendant did not have any authority to use the F Committee Fund) in the sports club D church (hereinafter “instant church”); (b) the circumstance that the Defendant issued the Defendant KRW 30 million to E (the Defendant requested the F Committee Fund to lend his/her own children’s educational expenses to E; and (c) the Defendant lent the F Committee Fund in consultation with the Chairperson according to the procedure; and (d) the F Committee Fund used for any purpose other than the scholarship (a loan to a church, church operation expenses, and various mission activities expenses, other than the scholarship).