The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (defluence and misapprehension of legal principles) (hereinafter “D consulting”) of the Defendant’s D Consulting Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D Consulting”) has been practically lawfully managed the F Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) on the land outside the Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and one parcel from around 2000.

For that reason, the Defendant’s embezzlement was committed since the profits from the common areas of the instant commercial building were properly disbursed by the other sectional owners with the implied consent of the other sectional owners.

The defendant may not be deemed to have the criminal intent of embezzlement.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of judgment, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below can be fully recognized.

D Consulting actually managed the instant commercial building from the position of the largest right holder at the time of acquiring a part of the instant commercial building around December 2000, to July 2009, and it is recognized that the circumstances in which other sectional owners and occupants have collected management expenses from other sectional owners and occupants.

In addition, the fact that D Consulting arbitrarily changed the use of the section for common use of the commercial building of this case and then sold or leased it to a third party is also recognized.

B. However, just because the D Consulting holds multiple shares, it cannot be deemed a legitimate manager without a separate appointment procedure. There is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an implied consent of other sectional owners in the appointment of a manager. Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem that other sectional owners approved the receipt of the above rent proceeds and the voluntary use of the D consulting.

C. D Consulting received from January 2005 to June 2009, the rent for the commercial section of this case reaches 368,790,000 won.

The defendant has received 237,419,447 won, excluding KRW 131,370,553 equivalent to the share of the D Consulting among the above rent profits from M of the D Consulting representative director at around that time.