업무상횡령
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of the Reasons for Appeal: Error of facts (In accordance with relevant evidence, the defendant received business promotion expenses in violation of the apartment management rules, etc., and the defendant merely rejected the return of the said money on the ground that the council of occupants' representatives was passed a resolution although he/she was well aware of the above facts. In light of such circumstances, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts, although the defendant recognized the intent of embezzlement and illegal acquisition, on the other hand,
2. In full view of the various circumstances stated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court below and the following circumstances added by the court below, the defendant embezzled temporary official expenses.
The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to prove that the defendant had either intentionally or unlawfully acquired the intent of embezzlement, and there is no error of misunderstanding the facts.
The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is not accepted.
- Circumstances in which the trial is added - ① The agenda to be discussed at the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case shall be presented in consultation with the president of the council of occupants' representatives and the director of the management office (324-325 pages of the trial record). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant consulted or discussed in advance to present "the agenda for temporary official expenses" as other agenda at the time of resolution of the council of occupants' representatives on January 21, 2014 when the provisional official expenses are resolved.
2. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant, who was out of the court for conflict of interest, has recruited or consulted in advance to present the above other agenda as a regular agenda to the other participants.
(3) There is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was "influence" in the process and proceedings of the presentation and proceedings of the above other agenda and the contents of the resolution.
④ As the court below properly explained, this case.