The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, from October 25, 2005 to April 30, 2014, was serving as a management director of the D Distribution Business Cooperatives in North-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “the instant cooperative”) and has been engaged in the storage and collection of goods of the said cooperative from February 23, 2012.

A. On May 30, 2012, the Defendant’s occupational embezzlement: (a) stated in the register of the head of the association as if he paid KRW 7,919,292 in cash from the head of each association’s branch and paid KRW 7,868,580 in the indictment of KRW 2,868,580 in fact, the Defendant stated that the “2,868,589 won” was erroneously stated in the indictment of KRW 2,86,580 in fact at each association’s office (in the face of 38 pages of the investigation record, the Defendant corrected the indictment ex officio as above.

After full payment, 5,050,712 won, which is the difference, was consumed for personal purposes around that time.

In addition, during the period from around that time to April 30, 2014, the Defendant arbitrarily consumed KRW 88,946,712 in total over 71 times, as indicated in the List of Offenses (hereinafter “crime List”) attached to the lower judgment.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the property of the instant association.

B. According to the articles of association of the instant association in breach of occupational duty, the disposal of surplus funds and disposal of losses shall undergo a resolution of the general meeting.

Nevertheless, on October 4, 2012, the Defendant violated the occupational duty to comply with the articles of association at the instant association’s office, and lent KRW 10,800,000 for the goods that were collected in advance from tin to promote the interest of E, who is the former director of the instant association, without any security, interest, or change, and had E repay KRW 10,139,50 on February 24, 2014.

As a result, the defendant acquired 750,000 won, which is a property profit equivalent to the amount of the above amount, from E, and suffered damages equivalent to the same amount of the above association.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) false description of the amount of corporate tax paid in the course of occupational embezzlement;