The judgment below

Among them, the part on the use of each private document and the exercise of the above-mentioned document against the defendants.

1. Since the compensation for losses due to the extinguishment of fishery rights is jointly owned by a fishing village fraternity, the distribution thereof shall be made by the resolution at the general meeting of the fishing village fraternity;

Therefore, as G’s fishing ground, which was held by G’s H fishing village fraternity, was included in the maritime bridge construction section of construction work No. 77 line (J) around 2012, the distribution of compensation for losses (hereinafter “compensation compensation”) should be made by the resolution of the H fishing village fraternity general meeting.

However, under the resolution of the H fishing village fraternity on January 27, 2013 with respect to the instant compensation, the Defendants: (a) concluded the instant fishing right exercise agreement with the Defendants, and C, on June 22, 2014, to the effect that 90% of the instant compensation would be distributed among the instant compensation; (b) voluntarily prepared a written resolution at the general meeting of the Defendants and C, and submitted 90% of the instant compensation to the public officials in charge of the management authority of the nextsan Regional Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and distributed the Defendants and C.

Although Defendants asserted that around February 24, 2013, HH fishing village fraternity held an extraordinary general meeting and the contents of the resolution passed by the Steering Committee on January 27, 2013 were reported and inferred on January 27, 2013, the issue of whether such extraordinary meeting was held or ratified is uncertain.

Therefore, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendants, on June 22, 2014, committed the embezzlement by forging and exercising a resolution at the general meeting of the H fishing village fraternity and distributing 90% of the compensation for the instant losses at will.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal as to the forgery and uttering of private documents, the Prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with respect to the forgery and uttering of private documents among the facts charged in the instant case by individually specifying the persons in the name of the document as follows, and this Court permits the same.