The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months and by imprisonment for four months.

1. Defendant A, as the president of the management body of the victim LA building, is the president of the management body of the above building. Defendant B, as the director of the management office of the above building, recruited the embezzlement of this case by putting the trust relationship with the victim management body, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the amount of damage is not much, and the Defendants were not recovered, and Defendant A paid the gas fee of an amount equivalent to KRW 34,118,840 for the victim management body on January 29, 2014. Considering the above, Defendant A paid the gas fee of an amount equivalent to KRW 34,118,840 for the victim management body on behalf of the victim management body. Considering the above, Defendant A asserted that most of the damages suffered by the victim management body were recovered. However, Defendant A paid the overdue management fee while taking over six defense rooms of the fourth floor of LA building from N. Even if the Defendants’ statements and materials were submitted, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A’s overdue management body’s damage was recovered even if it is acknowledged.

In light of the unfavorable circumstances, Defendant A paid KRW 3 million to the victim management body prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment. After the pronouncement of the lower judgment, Defendant B transferred KRW 13 million to the passbook used by the victim management body. In addition, Defendant B deposited KRW 10 million for the victim management body after the pronouncement of the lower judgment; Defendant B deposited money for the victim management body; the Defendants did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime; Defendant A did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine; Defendant A did not have any history of punishment exceeding the fine; and other factors of sentencing as indicated in the instant records and arguments, such as the Defendants’ age, background of the crime; degree of participation in the crime; means and consequence; distribution details of the embezzled amount; and circumstances after the crime.