The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The money that the occupant of the apartment of this case was dismissed to use for the purpose of precise diagnosis costs as well as for the costs of litigation or expenses incurred in selling the said money under favorable terms for the lessee. However, the Defendants thought that the occupant of the 495 household unit, who was sold in advance, renounced the right to the said money, and held a general meeting of the lessees of the 83 households unsold in lots and used the said money as litigation costs for its original purpose. Thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have embezzled the said money.

Even if embezzlement is established, the money unsold in lots by 83 households should be excluded from the embezzlement, but the court below recognized the entire facts charged and convicted the Defendants, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence (Defendant A: a fine of two million won, Defendant B: a fine of one million won) imposed by the lower court on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the assertion of mistake of facts, and the council of lessees’ representatives of a non-corporate association established on February 1, 2008, the council of lessees’ representatives of the E-building succeeded to the insolvent apartment council (the president H) established on October 20, 2009 by G, a rental business operator, to the non-corporate association, and the council of lessees’ representatives of the E-building (the president IN) was established on April 1, 2010 after 495 households were converted for sale in lots.

As a result, in order to use the apartment of this case as the defect diagnosis cost, occupants of the apartment of this case opened a total of 53 million won and stored in the passbook under the joint name of F, the representative of the above tenant council and the defendant A, the representative of the above tenant council. It is reasonable to view that the ownership of the above apartment of this case is the collective ownership of all occupants constituting the above council of lessees' representatives, and it is determined differently by the regulations in order to determine matters concerning the disposal of the above money.