The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine) was that the Defendant carried out the documents indicated in the facts charged of this case out to the outside and refused to return them in order to perform lawful audit duties, and there was a legitimate authority to refuse to return them, and there was no intention of embezzlement at the time

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case, and that the lower court rejected all of the Defendant’s arguments on the following grounds, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.

1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the court of the original instance and the association that had been offered to audit affairs even before, had no room for auditors to leave the association office voluntarily, ② the auditor appears to have requested to submit a new data if necessary to respond to the preparation of the audit report or to the auditor’s objection; ③ the meeting held before the instant case to the effect that it would be prohibited from indirectly and indirectly taking out documents related to the Association in order to prevent the unharm caused by the leakage of documents, and ④ even if the Defendant had not known the prohibited matters, the Defendant carried out documents outside the association office.

In full view of all the circumstances recognized by the above evidence, such as the fact that it would be possible to respond to the request for return, and that it is difficult to easily obtain the request for return, the intent of embezzlement can be sufficiently recognized, and there is a justifiable reason to refuse to return the documents as stated in the facts charged to the defendant.

It is difficult to see it.

2) Since Defendant 1, a president of the Association, had documents after consultation with E, the president of the Association, he cannot again respond to the demand for return due to the lack of an office of the Association, or the leakage of personal information on the membership roll was at issue, the documents are presented.