The defendant himself is in the position of supervising the management body as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives organized by the occupants of the apartment in this case, and the obligation to pay the heat use fee of the apartment in this case is against the head of the apartment management office in accordance with the Housing Act and the apartment house entrustment contract of the apartment in this case, and the damages to the occupants have occurred due to the overdue charge, but the overdue charge can not be said to have occurred as a matter of course due to the delay in the payment period of the heat use fee, and thus, the court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged in this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the above legal principles

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the statement made by the court of the court below and the investigation agency, the statement made by the non-indicted 2, 3, and 4 at the investigation agency, etc., the deposit account used to collect the management fee of the apartment of this case requires the defendant's cooperation in order to pay the heating fee of this case after being opened under the joint name of the council of occupants' representatives and the head of the management office of the apartment of this case. The defendant was aware through non-indicted 3, etc. at the time. At the time of payment deadline, the non-indicted 1, who was in custody of the head of the management office's seal impression, requested the payment deadline of the heating fee of the above heating fee of this case, to affix the seal in custody so that the defendant can pay the heating fee of this case at the bank bank. At that time, the fact that the non-indicted 1 cannot

Considering the above-mentioned facts and the crime of occupational breach of trust, a person who administers another person's business as a person responsible for handling another person's business as well as a person in charge of handling another person's business directly or indirectly, the court below is just to recognize the defendant as a person with an occupational duty to pay the above heat use fee, and it is recognized that the increase in the total property value has occurred due to the defendant's occupational breach of trust. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Jin-Jin-Jin-Jin (Presiding Judge)