All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Of the judgment of the court below, “this case’s facts charged” are occupational.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) had no intention to commit occupational breach of trust with respect to the Defendant’s failure to return retirement allowances already paid from F.

Although the Defendant did not submit a written reason for appeal within the submission period of the written reason for appeal, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that he/she is dissatisfied with the intent of breach of trust in the “written request for a national defense counsel” submitted within the said period. Thus, the Defendant’

B. The Defendant’s act committed an occupational breach of trust due to false statement on the ground of severance from employment, resulting in a specific risk of property damage to the victim E E management council (hereinafter “victim E management council”), and the Defendant had the intent to commit occupational breach of trust.

(2) As to the embezzlement, the Defendant received and kept KRW 500,000 from the victim C as payment for the construction cost.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion, the lower court determined that the Defendant paid KRW 911,460 as retirement allowance to F for which the period of service at the victim’s meeting on December 30, 2011, did not exceed one year, and that the Defendant violated his/her duties as the first policeman on February 201, and thus, was not entitled to return KRW 911,460 to G.

It is recognized that instructions were given.

In light of these circumstances, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant has an intention to commit occupational breach of trust in relation to the return of the retirement allowance.

B. (1) The lower court’s determination on the prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant’s act constituted occupational breach of trust due to false statement on the ground of severance from employment cannot be deemed as the victim’s operation meeting within the Seoul Regional Labor Agency, the main agent of the payment of unemployment benefits, and the issuance of an administrative disposition, such as the imposition of an administrative fine, to the victim’s operation council, is the appointment and supervision of the Defendant of the above operation council.