The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of No. 1 of the judgment of the defendant, and for a crime of No. 2 of the judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles did not have the status of a person who has kept the deposited money in the position of a person who has been in the custody of the deposited money, and the Defendant is not recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition since the Defendant has lawfully used deposited money and loaned money as living expenses, business promotion expenses, service charges, etc. according to

2) Each sentence sentenced by the lower court (a crime No. 1 of the judgment of the lower court: 2 years of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment, and a crime No. 2 of the judgment of the lower court: Imprisonment for one year of suspended sentence, two years of suspended sentence for one year, and 320 hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding the fact that ① 7.5 million won of living expenses was compensated for the Defendant’s living expenses in return for performing his/her duties

It is difficult to see that the resolution of the board of directors required by the articles of association of the victim church is not possible, and it is embezzlement to use 1.5 million won per month from among the deposited money kept by the defendant as the living expenses.

② The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no intention to acquire the above 35 million won, which was already excluded from the facts charged, even though the Prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment, excluding the above 35 million won used by the Defendant as the costs of lawsuit at the lower court.

2) Each sentence that the court below rendered unfair sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The defendant argued the same purport in the court below's determination as to the defendant's misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is legitimate, and the defendant's misunderstanding of the above facts or misapprehension of the legal principle is without merit

3. Determination as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Determination on the cost of living expenses of KRW 7.5 million 1) The relevant legal doctrine doctrine does not generally have legal capacity.