The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: Defendant A, as the president of the resident representative council of the apartment complex in Ansan-gu, from September 1, 1998 to August 31, 2012, engaged in various tasks, such as approving the disbursement of expenses, miscellaneous income, etc. for managing the apartment.

Defendant

B, from April 17, 2007 to January 10, 2013, as a complaint for the management of the above apartment, was engaged in various affairs, such as management expenses, miscellaneous income, etc. of the apartment.

On December 28, 2007, the Defendants: (a) purchased the key of the instant apartment complex in the amount of KRW 1,695,000 in the market value of KRW 15,00, and arbitrarily consumed the key of the said apartment complex for the apartment residents, which was created through the sale of recycled products and the establishment of a storage place, on behalf of the apartment residents; and (b) made use of the key of the said apartment complex in the form of a gold counter, and paid to the representative.

As a result, the Defendants conspired and embezzled the property of the victims who were in custody in the course of their work.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of embezzlement, the intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent of a custodian of another’s property to dispose of the property without authority for his/her own or a third party’s interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Thus, in cases where the custodian disposes of it for the benefit of the owner, not for his/her own or a third party’s interest, barring any special circumstance, the intent of unlawful acquisition cannot be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3009, Mar. 9, 1982, etc.). In a case where the defendant denies it due to the internal intent, the aforementioned intent of unlawful acquisition is proved by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts relevant to the nature of the object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do5899, Jun. 24, 2010). The prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the act of embezzlement as an act of realizing the intent of unlawful acquisition is an act of embezzlement.