All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant: misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with the consent of all sectional owners at the time of leasing the rooftop part of the instant commercial building to LG Plus Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) for the installation of a mobile device; and the content of the consent was that “the Defendant performs his duties as a manager of the commercial building for sectional owners, and the sectional owners are replaced by the rent that the Defendant would receive from the said company (hereinafter “instant rent”) for the remuneration that the said sectional owners would pay to the Defendant.”

Therefore, since the rent that the defendant received from the company of this case constitutes remuneration for the management of the defendant's commercial building, the defendant used it individually.

Even if there is no consent from the sectional owners of domestic affairs, the crime of embezzlement is not established. Even if there is no consent from the sectional owners, the defendant used the rent by mistake that he replaces the rent with the manager's remuneration, and thus,

B. Since the prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are the same as the co-owner of the building of this case, the defendant is in the position of the person who keeps the rent of this case in relation to the sectional owner.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the facts charged of embezzlement of rents related to F, G, and H is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

(2) The lower court’s sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant, the Defendant did not have obtained consent from D and E to use the instant rent as remuneration, and the Defendant received rent, with knowledge of such circumstances, for personal purposes.