All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A 3,000,000 won, and Defendant B 2,000,000 won, respectively.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, despite the fact that the defendants, who had been the chairperson of the E residents' self-governing center, voluntarily consumed the instant subsidies from each of the E residents' self-governing centers, etc., could sufficiently be recognized, the court below acquitted the defendants of the facts charged of this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles

2. Determination

A. The lower court, first of all, found Defendant A’s embezzlement as follows: (a) part of the embezzlement amount was appropriately used in accordance with the purpose of the operation of the E Residents’ Self-Governing Committee or E Residents’ Self-Governing Center; (b) other parts were deemed to have been used as a support fund or support fund at the time of the event related to the autonomous committee although the details of the use were not specifically verified; and (c) Defendant A, who did not actually receive the payment of the funds, could not explain the specific details of the use; (d) it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant embezzled the instant subsidy with an intent to acquire unlawful acquisition; and (e) there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to acknowledge the embezzlement portion; and (e) it is difficult to regard Defendant B’s embezzlement portion as Defendant A was used in relation to the operation of the autonomous committee, etc.; and (e) it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B had arbitrarily used the subsidy, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B used it.

B. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendants, who were the chairman of the autonomous committee, are as indicated in the facts charged.