The court below found the defendants guilty of the facts charged on the ground of its stated reasoning, such as that the defendants' use of miscellaneous income for purposes other than the purpose of the long-term repair allowance which should be strictly limited in accordance with the apartment management rules, by itself is the realization of the intention of illegal acquisition, while the defendant has worked as the president of the management office of apartment and the representative council of occupants' representative, without accumulating the income from indoor golf practice and the health training room in the apartment residents' welfare center as a long-term repair reserve, and has been embezzled for the above facilities as the cost of acquiring the above facilities and existing facilities.

The judgment below

Examining the grounds for appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the aforementioned determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unlawful acquisition intent of embezzlement, the nature of miscellaneous income not accumulated as the long-term repair reserve fund, the accounting thereof, etc., or by

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.