The guilty portion shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on December 19, 2005 and October 5, 2007, sentenced the suspended sentence of KRW 1,000,000, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 1,000,000, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty on each of the occupational embezzlement on May 29, 2008 and September 16, 2009.

B. Accordingly, on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below, the prosecutor filed each appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts as to the acquittal portion among the judgment below, and the judgment dismissing both appeals on the grounds that both appeals are groundless.

(c)

With respect to the above judgment, only the defendant appealed against the guilty part of the judgment of the court of first instance before the remand, and the acquittal part of the judgment of the court of first instance after the exchange transmission became final and conclusive separately as the prosecutor did not appeal.

(d)

The Supreme Court affirmed the Defendant’s appeal and reversed the judgment of the court prior to the remand on the ground that it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the intention of unlawful acquisition of occupational embezzlement, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

E. Ultimately, the scope of this Court’s judgment is limited to the conviction of the judgment below.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant was not in the position of a person who holds the special repair reserve of this case, the lower court accepted the facts charged and convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, paid the special repair allowances of this case as the estimated cost of structural diagnosis and the attorney fees through lawful procedures, such as following the resolution of the representative meeting of occupants and reporting it to the competent authorities. As such, the amount that was paid as above was used for the occupants of the apartment of this case, the Defendant was also the Defendant.