All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

The main reason for appeal against Defendant A is that the sentence imposed by the court below on Defendant A (the imprisonment of six months, the suspension of execution of two years, the community service hours of 80 hours) is too uneased and unreasonable.

Defendant

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor on the grounds of appeal as to B, even though there was no agreement on the change of land subject to sale with the victim G church, Defendant B could fully recognize the fact of deceiving A, the chairman of the G church, and acquiring the purchase price by deception.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

Defendant

As to the grounds for appeal against A, the amount of the embezzlement of this case reaches KRW 45 million, and the fact that the victim did not agree with the victim is disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, most of the embezzlement amount of this case seems to have been carried out later, and the Defendant appears to have lent 20 million won to his/her subsequent jury, and the Defendant appears to have returned 20 million won out of the embezzlement amount of this case to the victim B.

A defendant has no record of punishment for the same kind of crime.

In full view of the above circumstances and the following circumstances, Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court’s sentencing committee, etc., the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair because it is too uneasible.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

Defendant

The summary of the facts charged as to the grounds for appeal against B was false to the purport that “A would demand part payments from a clan to pay part payments,” on the ground that Defendant B entered into a sales contract with the G church at the time, in a place where the location of around January 18, 2010 cannot be known.”

(b).