The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (A) The Defendant, according to the direction of D, who is the president of the council of occupants' representatives, withdrawn money from the head of the Tong for apartment management expenses, remitted KRW 1,400,000 to D's attorney's expense, and KRW 587,920 to E as management expenses for the apartment owned by D, and remitted KRW 1,00,000 to E to return the collected amount of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee's expense, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty

(B) The Defendant, as a general secretary of the council of occupants' representatives, moved the documents of this case to secure evidence on the suspicion of embezzlement that is the president, and thus, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the larceny charges is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

(2) The sentence of the judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant’s act of hiding the facts charged constitutes the crime of interference with business, as it constitutes an act of hiding the money withdrawal, deposit and withdrawal account book, and minutes in the apartment management office.

(2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on December 31, 2012, the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (A) as to the occupational embezzlement of KRW 2,055,00,000, which was decided on December 31, 2012, the Defendant demanded that D, the president of the council of occupants’ representatives pay KRW 2,05,000,000, out of the apartment management charge passbook without D’s permission, in lieu of paying KRW 20,000,000,000,000, out of the apartment management charge passbook, as the attorney’s appointment fee for the apartment house of KRW 587,920,000, which was decided on December 31, 2012, the Defendant used the remaining money. According to the above findings, according to the above facts, the Defendant’s above money was acknowledged.