The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

1. The prosecutor of the facts charged of this case reveals that the defendant served as the representative of the resident representative meeting of the Geumcheon-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government apartment complex B (hereinafter “the apartment complex of this case”) from May 2008 to May 2009, the representative of the resident representative meeting of the resident representative of the apartment complex of this case from June 30, 2009 to June 30, and the representative of the resident representative meeting of the apartment complex of this case from June 2013. While the management expenses that the resident of the apartment complex of this case received from the resident of the apartment complex of this case for his business purposes, the defendant embezzled 250,000 won for the records of the litigation case in which the resident of the apartment complex of this case was a party to the apartment complex of this case from May 23, 2009 to December 15, 2010 [Attachment], as stated in the list of offenses, and embezzled 239,500 won for consumption of the apartment complex of this case.

Appellants, Defendant was prosecuted as embezzlement for occupational embezzlement.

2. Determination:

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to a person who keeps another’s property without authority for the benefit of himself/herself or a third party as if he/she owns it or disposes of it under the law, contrary to the purport of entrustment. Thus, in cases where the custodian disposes of it for the benefit of his/her own or a third party, not for the benefit of himself/herself or the third party, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be acknowledged unless there are special circumstances.

The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the existence of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intention of unlawful acquisition, and the proof should be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes the judge not reasonable doubt.

If there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1477, Feb. 15, 2017).