A. There is room to view that the operating expenses paid from January 17, 201 to January 16, 201, which was after the amendment of the apartment management rules of this case, were not paid as unpaid attendance allowances during the above period, but as the operating expenses of the representative meeting of occupants accumulated during the previous period.

Therefore, the defendant's operating expenses do not meet the objective composition requirements of the crime of embezzlement.

B. Under the apartment management rules of this case, there was no provision that the defendant should return the unpaid allowance for attendance, and there was no clear accounting standards related thereto.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of embezzlement or illegal acquisition.

(c)

The defendant's unpaid allowances paid during the above-mentioned period are only one million won, and the defendant's act is not against the social rules and thus illegal is excluded.

(d)

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles.

2. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower judgment.

As to this, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the Defendant voluntarily used the meeting attendance allowance together with Defendant B (hereinafter “B”) for another purpose, and thus, the crime of embezzlement is established against the Defendant, and the circumstance alleged by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a legitimate act.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, it is true.