The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and inappropriate sentencing)

A. Since the committee for the promotion of a mistake of facts C Housing Association (hereinafter “the committee of this case”) failed to meet the requirements of the non-corporate association, it cannot be the owner of the Housing Promotion Center of the size of 1,211.97 square meters in size in the size of 1,211.97 square meters in the non-corporate association and 3 lots, and the defendant is the actual owner of the Public Relations Center of this case.

Even if the owner of the publicity center of this case is the committee of this case, the defendant thought that he was the owner of the publicity center of this case, and there was no intention of embezzlement.

In addition, the publicity officer of the instant case is a temporary building, the preservation of ownership of which is impossible, and the Defendant cannot be said to have had practical and legal control, and the Defendant does not constitute “a person who keeps another’s property”

B. Even if the defendant's act of unfair sentencing is found guilty, the sentencing of the court below (the probation three years in one year and six months in imprisonment, and the community service order of 80 hours in 1 year and eight) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The subject of embezzlement of the relevant legal doctrine is a person who keeps another’s property in accordance with a consignment relationship, and the consignment relationship is not necessarily necessary to be established according to a contract, such as loan for use, lease, delegation, etc., and may be established pursuant to business management, customs, cooking, and trust rules, and the owner is not necessarily recognized to have directly entrusted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do5346, Mar. 13, 2014). “Safekeeping of property in embezzlement” refers to the actual or legal control over the property, and the custody thereof should be based on the consignment relationship with the owner, etc. However, the consignment relationship is sufficient if it is de facto consignment relationship, and whether the truster has the right to take effective disposition, or whether the trustee has the right to be entrusted with the property under the law.