Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

From around 2008, the defendant has been in charge of women's meeting of the Mayang-gu Mayang-si C apartment.

Miscellaneous revenues, such as revenues from galmp market, advertising water import, and disposition of clothes within the apartment complex, shall be appropriated for reserve funds within a certain range, or accumulated for the long-term repair reserve funds after the resolution of the meeting of representatives of occupants in accordance with the rules and regulations for apartment management.

Nevertheless, the Defendant embezzled an amount equivalent to 95,068 won of miscellaneous income up to November 2012 by arbitrarily depositing 95,068 won into his account to the victim’s “C apartment occupants’ representative meeting,” and by using 50,000 won at D’s office on December 3, 2012 to aid neighbors at his/her discretion, from the time to July 13, 2013, and then depositing miscellaneous income into his/her account for the said apartment in custody for the said apartment income victim from July 13, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against E;

1. Application of the management rules of each multi-family housing, and the subordinate statutes of each female president;

1. The choice of a fine, inclusive, under Article 355(1) and Article 355 of the Criminal Act regarding the relevant criminal facts and the choice of a penalty;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order is justifiable as the amount of reserve funds through the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives, or there was no intention of unlawful acquisition against the defendant.

The argument is asserted.

However, even after examining the record, F, which was the chairman of the tenant representative meeting, allowed the management of miscellaneous income to the personal passbook in the name of the defendant.