All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the articles of association of the instant church concerning the crime of occupational embezzlement, Defendant 1 is one of the duties of the church conference, and matters not specified in the articles of association are to be governed by the Constitution of the D Religious Organization.

Meanwhile, the Constitution of the D Religious Organization provides that "the church shall take charge of the house of the land belonging to the church," and the concept of "patriarch" includes the disposal of real estate and the provision of security.

Therefore, even though the act of offering the instant land as collateral is sufficient only with the resolution of the party meeting and need to undergo a separate resolution of the party meeting, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by determining that the said act requires a resolution of the party meeting.

In addition, since the Defendant’s wife G purchased the instant land and then settled the balance around October 19, 2012, the sales contract was terminated in entirety and only the name remains in the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the actual right holder of the instant land was G in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

Therefore, even if the Defendant provided the instant land as collateral and borrowed it as stated in paragraph (b) of Article 1 of the facts charged, it does not dispose of the instant church’s properties, but merely disposes of G-owned properties, but the lower court erred by misapprehending legal principles, which determined that the Defendant embezzled the church’s properties.

B. As seen earlier, the act of offering the instant building owned by the instant church as collateral for the crime of occupational breach of trust is sufficient by the resolution of the party council, and even if the Defendant offered the said building as collateral and borrowed it through a normal resolution of the party council, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment that the resolution of the

(b).