The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court convicted the Defendant even though there was no intention of unlawful acquisition to use the long-term excursion ship reserve funds as stated in the lower judgment, and there was an error of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine on the following grounds.

(1) A housing manager who can become the head of a management office under Article 67 of the Management of Multi-Family Housing Act shall have expertise in the operation and management of multi-family housing, who has passed a qualifying examination meeting strict requirements.

The Defendant, who is qualified as a housing manager, had been provided with advice from H, the director of the instant apartment management affairs, from time to time. In this case, the Defendant was given advice that there was no problem even without undergoing the long-term repair plan adjustment procedure, etc., and thus, it was inevitable

H, in addition, he prepared the meeting minutes of the board of directors or reported the details of the execution to the representative regular meeting of occupants, and participated in the expenditure of the long-term passenger reserve fund of this case, such as the selection of the corporation and the participation in the contract.

② 피고인은 입주자 대표회의 만장일치의 의결을 거친 후 전체 입주자들 로부터 서면 동의서를 받는 방법으로 지하 주차장 및 각 동 현관의 캐노피와 경비 초소 창문 샷 시를 설치하는 데 있어 장기 수선 충당금을 사용하기로 결정하였다.

After that, since the result was publicly announced to occupants and the approval of the letter of resolution for expenditure was obtained, all the requirements and procedures other than the procedures of the decision of the court below have been satisfied.

③ 위 각 캐노피는 건물의 공용부분으로 지하 주차장 및 현관의 진입로에 설치된 지붕에 해당하고, 경비 초소 창문 샷 시는 건물 외부 창문에 해당하므로, 모두 공동주택 관리법 제 29조 제 2 항, 같은 법 시행규칙 제 7조 제 1 항 별표 1에서 규정하는 장기 수선 충당금의 지출대상에 속하는 주요시설이라고 할 수 있다....