The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the part concerning the crime of negligence) with the consent of the members, the Defendant spent the same money as indicated in the annexed Table 1 of the judgment of the first instance court with the consent of the members, and even though there was no intention of unlawful acquisition by the Defendant, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. 2) The sentence of the court below

B. Prosecutor 1) The amount stated in the list of crimes No. 2 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance (not guilty part of the grounds for appeal) is not the amount executed by a legitimate resolution of the Steering Committee. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise and found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below against the

2. In the event that the appellate court’s determination of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding the defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (the part concerning the crime of oil), did not have a new objective reason that could affect the formation of perjury during the trial process, but intends to re-examine the first instance court’s determination ex post facto and ex post facto,

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and that the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court without such exceptional circumstances should not be reversed without permission (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031 Decided March 22, 2017). Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in detail in light of the records, the lower court’s reasoning is that the witness E who is the member of the victim church, the F, and the Defendant’s case expenses are disbursed from the loans, as stated in the judgment of the first instance court.