The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) The amount recognized by the lower court as the long-term repair reserve includes the long-term repair reserve funds unpaid by the occupants.

Therefore, the unpaid long-term repair allowances should be excluded from the amount of damage.

2) If unpaid management expenses are deposited after the delay, the defendant would be temporarily appropriated for the long-term repair reserve funds, so the defendant did not have any intention to obtain unlawful acquisition.

3) A player management fee can be used for expenses necessary for the management and operation of the apartment common area, and the defendant does not use it for purposes other than those of use.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal, the Prosecutor arbitrarily used the total amount of KRW 23,530,150 for purposes other than its original purpose, such as the long-term repair allowances and the management fees for athletes by December 2, 2013, which was charged 10 “from around that time” (hereinafter “the charges”) in the trial of the Party, and the Prosecutor arbitrarily used the total amount of KRW 25,589,046 for purposes other than its original purpose.

“Application for Amendments to Bill of Indictment was filed to the effect that the subject of the adjudication was changed by this court’s permission, and thus the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles is still subject to a trial by this court within the scope of the revised facts charged, and this is examined in below (Article 1 of the defendant).

A. 1) Paragraph 1’s assertion is premised on the facts charged prior to the amendment, and it does not directly dispute the facts concerning the changed facts in relation to the defendant and his/her defense counsel at the third trial date on September 13, 2017.

As the above argument has been stated, no longer room for determination has been made.B. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles1).