The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendants, as the president of women's association of DNA apartment buildings, can recognize the fact of embezzlement by arbitrarily using the miscellaneous income of the above apartment as the intent of unlawful acquisition. However, the court below found the defendants not guilty on the grounds of misconception of the fact.

2. Determination

A. The intent of unlawful acquisition in the crime of embezzlement refers to a person who keeps another's property without authority for his own or a third party's own interest in violation of the purpose of entrustment. Thus, in a case where the custodian disposes of the property for his or her own interest, not for his or a third party's own interest, it cannot be recognized as an intention of unlawful acquisition unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do3009, Mar. 9, 1982, etc.). (b) The court below held that the Defendants disposed of the property for his own interest or a third party's own interest without authority when taking into account the following: (a) the details and verification process of the resolution of the representative meeting of the occupants; (b) the details and amendment process of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act; (c) the details of the enforcement decree of the Housing Act; and (d) the contents of the relevant apartment management regulations, etc.

It is difficult to see

Based on the judgment, the defendant was acquitted.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below's acquittal in light of relevant evidence and records, the court below is just in holding the acquittal of each of the facts charged in this case for the reasons stated in its holding and there is no error of law by mistake of facts related to illegal acquisition intent

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit.