The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and C shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

3.2

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) The judgment of the court below that convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, although the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a crime of breach of trust as stated below, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of judgment

① On November 18, 2009, the crime sight No. 1 - On December 22, 2009, the above attorney’s expense amounting to KRW 9.9 million, which was paid on December 22, 2009, was resolved at the meeting of the representatives of occupants of G apartments, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the above apartment house”, and the representative meeting of occupants of the above apartment house was held at the meeting of representatives of occupants. On November 18, 2009, the Defendant expressed his dissenting opinion on the appointment of a lawyer at the meeting of representatives of occupants.

The defendant also refused to approve the execution of the attorney appointment fee, and accordingly, the approval of the withdrawal fee of the representative meeting of occupants also has been granted in the letter of approval of the defendant, who is the vice-chairperson.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit a breach of trust with respect to the payment of expenses.

② A resolution on the appointment of an attorney-at-law fee of KRW 8.8 million spent on April 1, 2010 is followed by the resolution of the council of occupants on March 18, 2010. The Defendant merely carried out a meeting of occupants by acting for the Defendant B, who was the chairman of the council of occupants, and did not agree with the above resolution.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to commit a breach of trust with respect to the payment of expenses.

③ On August 20, 2010, the expenditure of 6.6 million won for the attorney-at-law’s appointment related to filing an appeal against the suspension of performance of duties against the attorney-at-law’s appointment fee of KRW 6.6 million incurred on August 20, 2010 is made by a resolution of the occupant’s representative meeting on July 12, 2010.

In this regard, the defendant appealed against the decision to dismiss the above provisional disposition.