The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was found not guilty of all the facts charged of this case, but such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment as seen below.

A. 1) The monthly advance payment and rent deposit for the section for common use of the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) fall under the common property of the E management group comprised of the sectional owners of the instant commercial building, and the trade name at the time of the establishment of the F Co., Ltd., a management company of the instant commercial building, was changed to “J” and changed to “F,” and subsequently closed on June 15, 2012.

The management company of this case is called “the management company of this case.”

Since it is not possible to use the money owned by the E Management Company for the purpose of the E Management Company, it constitutes embezzlement and illegal acquisition intent is also recognized.

Nevertheless, there is an agreement under which the instant management company received the monthly advance payment and rent deposits for the common areas of the instant commercial building to vest in the E Management Group immediately, or there was an intent to acquire illegal profits by embezzlement against the Defendant.

The Court determined that the person could not be determined.

B. The Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from S in the facts charged 2)

However, in light of the fact that the defendant's statement is contrary to the content of the E management unit data, the defendant's statement has no credibility.

Nevertheless, the lower court accepted the Defendant’s statement without credibility and embezzled the money of E Management Group.

The Court determined that the person could not be determined.

(c)

B) The money embezzled by the Defendant as retirement allowance for employees of the instant management company is KRW 100 million, which the Defendant lent to E parking lots Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E parking lots”).