The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in the apartment of this case has used the operating expenses of the council of occupants' representatives as a condition that the representative is responsible for the place of use in practice, and the defendant only approved the payment of money to the representative D, not by the Industrial Complex Development Committee, according to such custom. Thus, the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed a breach of trust.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that Article 32 subparagraph 5 of the Management Rules of the apartment of this case provides that "the cost of activation of the council of occupants' representatives may be paid to the self-employed organization by resolution to revitalize the apartment house."

(2) Article 32 subparag. 5 of the Management Rules provides that “The expenses of the instant banner, etc. shall be determined by the council of occupants’ representatives in order to pay the activation expenses to the operating expenses through Article 32 subparag. 5 of the Management Rules, the principle of private autonomy is effective, unless there is a mandatory law that does not stipulate the matters concerning the disbursement of operating expenses as the matters to be resolved by the council of representatives.” Furthermore, the following circumstances recognized by each of the above evidence are as follows: (i) the Defendant stated in the investigative agency to the effect that the expenses of the instant operating expenses were paid by the female council of the Development Committee following the use of banner, etc. (Evidence No. 40, 41 form of evidence records); and (ii) the receipt of the disbursement of operating expenses of the instant case also includes the “payment of expenses related to community activation.”