The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant’s money received is the money attributed to the managing body of the apartment of this case, and the Defendant could fully recognize the status of custodian, but the lower court was the property owned by the managing body.

The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was in custody for the management authority.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the fact that the Defendant arbitrarily used and embezzled the instant money during the custody of the Director of the Management Office, the managing body of the instant apartment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the contrary premise as to the facts charged in this case.

Therefore, prosecutor's argument is justified. A.

The Defendant, around November 2015, was the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives of the instant apartment complex. Upon receipt of a proposal from F, the head of the J Team, that he/she would want to hold a camping market in the instant apartment complex on two occasions in spring and B, and concluded a contract on the holding of the camping market in the instant apartment complex (hereinafter “instant contract”) with F, setting the total amount to be paid by F as KRW 6 million between F and F.

B. Since then, the president of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case changed to Q. The council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case decided that the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case works for the president of the council of occupants' representatives on the selection of the field market company (Evidence 7 pages), but the defendant still had the authority to select the field market company of the apartment of this case as Q.

(No. 45, 46 pages).

F shall be the defendant on January 27, 2016, KRW 200,000,000, and February 26, 2016.