The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As litigation costs, E, L’s business promotion expenses, and M’’’ meeting attendance allowances with respect to the crime of occupational embezzlement are decided by the council of occupants’ representatives or there are grounds under the management rules, the Defendant paid the above money from apartment management expenses.

Even if it does not constitute embezzlement.

B. As to the preparation of qualification specifications, preparation of qualification specifications, display of private documents, and obstruction of business, the Defendant prepared and announced “public announcement of the members of the Election Commission,” etc. on October 22, 2012 after lawful election by the chairman of the election management committee, the Defendant is not qualified as the chairman of the apartment management committee or interfere with the business of the chairman of the election management committee. Even if the Defendant was not legally elected as the chairman of the election management committee, and thus, the crime of interference with business is not established.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case regarding the crime of occupational embezzlement, the summary of the occupational embezzlement among the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, as the president of the 9th council of occupants’ representatives, withdrawn KRW 9.5 million from the apartment management expenses kept by the victim apartment occupants on January 2, 2013, and embezzled them as agreed money under the condition of withdrawal of the lawsuit to E, elected by the president of the 10th council of occupants’ representatives.

The lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges on the ground that the lawsuit withdrawn by agreement as above is difficult to be deemed to be related to the interests of the council of occupants' representatives, and that the Defendant voluntarily paid the agreed amount without going through a resolution of the council of occupants' representatives when paying it.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant, as the chairperson of the 9th council of occupants' representatives, is the 10th council of the above apartment.