The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the Defendant has used money created through the sale of recycled products and the operation of Albibibunter under long-term custom and approval of the council of occupants’ representatives as activity expenses, and such Defendant’s act does not constitute embezzlement.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant did not use the money created through advertisement in the apartment and sale of recycled products for the whole apartment residents, and used the remodelling office subsidy that only some of the apartment residents agree, women's association membership fee, women's association membership fee, general telephone fee, etc., and the fact that it did not obtain prior approval from the council of occupants' representatives in carrying out the money. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

[Defendant also recognized by the investigative agency that the above money was used as a subsidy for a remodeling office only by a resolution of a female council without a resolution of the council of occupants' representatives (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4735, Apr. 27, 2006). However, there are only circumstances that only the president of the council of occupants' representatives made oral remarks (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4735, Apr. 27, 2006), and there are no minutes that the council of occupants' representatives approved the above money as activity expenses in advance to use it as activity expenses, and no crime of embezzlement is established only with the knowledge of custom. It does not interfere with the establishment of the crime of embezzlement or the crime of breach of trust, and the act of embezzlement or the crime of breach of trust cannot be justified with the execution of budget according to the resolution of the council of occupants' representatives (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4735, Apr. 27, 2006).