A. The prosecutor (the part not guilty in the original judgment) arbitrarily consumed the litigation cost that the Defendant had been entrusted by the occupants of the Da Apartment-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and embezzled to pay the fine imposed on himself and J, and there is sufficient evidence to support this.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant (the guilty part of the judgment of the court below) was not in the position of the custodian of the special repair reserve of this case. However, the court below accepted this part of the charges and found Defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. (2) The Defendant used the special repair reserve of this case as structural diagnosis expenses and attorney fees through legitimate procedures, such as making a resolution of the council of occupants' representatives and filing a report to the competent authority, etc., and the amount paid as above was used for the occupants of the apartment of this case. As such, the Defendant did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition, and the above act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted this part of the facts charged and found the defendant guilty. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the intention of unlawful acquisition or legitimate act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged against the prosecutor’s argument is as follows: (a) the Defendant served as the president of the council of occupants’ representatives from March 200 to March 2002; and (b) from October 2003 to December 16, 2010, respectively.