The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, the Defendant, at the time of preparing a written agreement on the adjustment of reverse contracts with the Korean comprehensive management company, obtained approval from E by the representative council of occupants, and as such, the written agreement for adjustment was prepared on December 11, 2014, was planned at the meeting of occupants in light of Article 4 of the previous agreement for the purpose of self-maintenance, and was an auditor at the time. At the time, D, the president, had already pointed out the contents of the written agreement for mediation and reported it to the auditor on April 2015, and then, until February 2016, it can be deemed that the approval of the council of occupants’ representatives was obtained even in view of the fact that the agreement was executed in accordance with the content of the mediation agreement. Thus, the Defendant did not constitute a crime of occupational breach

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

On this occasion, the court below continued to implement the audit report on the circumstances and the contents of the mediation agreement as properly explained by the court below, but thereafter, as a result of the mediation agreement.

the representative meeting of occupants approved the preparation of the mediation agreement by the defendant;

In addition, we cannot accept the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles that the Defendant is not guilty of occupational breach of trust.

B. After the judgment of the court below on the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the relevant civil judgment became final and conclusive with respect to the instant case that the Defendant is liable for damages to the occupant representative meeting (Skcheon District Court 2017Na 52662). In addition, considering the sentencing conditions and the reasons for sentencing as indicated in the record and the change theory of the instant case, even if the Defendant considered all the circumstances asserted on the grounds of appeal, it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below is unfair.