The judgment below

The guilty part concerning Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

(b).

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Prosecutor 1) The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to part of the facts charged against Defendant A, which was used for personal use unrelated to the partnership’s business or intended to obtain unlawful acquisition

Although not guilty on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded, since there is no evidentiary document, such as receipts and details of tax return, consistent with the Defendant’s assertion, and did not obtain the approval from the Cooperative, Defendant A’s assertion is not reliable, and this part of the facts charged should also

Defendant

B as a general secretary, was at the location of reviewing the appropriateness of the fund execution by the president of the partnership, and was delivered cash to Defendant A in violation of the accounting procedure or the resolution of the board of directors without the resolution of the board of directors.

It is reasonable to view it.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the suspended sentence of 2 years, 200 hours of community service order, Defendant B’s fine of 50,000 won in the year and June of Defendant A’s imprisonment) is too uneased and unreasonable.

B. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts and legal principles acknowledged the establishment of embezzlement on the ground that part of the facts charged against Defendant A was used for an individual purpose unrelated to the partnership’s business with the intent of unlawful acquisition. However, since the accounting and financial management of Defendant A’s association are inevitable, Defendant A was somewhat insufficient, and Defendant A only made a somewhat inconsistent statement due to an incorrect memory after the lapse of several years after the execution of the funds, and Defendant A’s submission of the materials reveals that the credibility of the statement can be acknowledged. Thus, there is insufficient proof as to the use for an individual’s personal purpose or the intent of unlawful acquisition.

must be viewed.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged various circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, and subsequently acknowledged the same.