The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of the Defendants’ appeal

A. A. Around August 2004, the resident representative meeting of D apartment in Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant apartment”) decided that “20,000 won out of 408,000 operating expenses of the resident representative meeting shall be the cost of business promotion, and 100,000 won shall be paid to the chairperson and 30,000 won shall be paid to the four representative members of the Dong, respectively, as business promotion cost,” and the Defendants received the project promotion cost based on the above resolution.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without the resolution of the occupant representative meeting, dismissed part of the operating expenses under the pretext of business promotion and embezzled them.

In order to determine whether the Defendants were guilty of all the facts charged of this case, the Defendants committed a mistake in fact.

B. In light of the fact that before the Defendants were elected as the Dong representative of the apartment complex of this case, the Defendants paid 30,000 won per month to each of the Dong representative of the occupants, and the Defendants maintained their lives with the aged and without any particular income, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced the Defendants to a fine of KRW 50,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B is a person who was engaged in the 103 Dong representative work of the instant apartment from February 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010, and Defendant A was engaged in the 105 Dong representative work from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010.

The Defendants conspired with each other from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010, in charge of the instant 4 representative affairs of the instant apartment complex. Defendant B, on October 29, 2010, embezzled by obtaining KRW 270,000 as the “expenses for the promotion of occupants’ representative affairs” and Defendant A, on November 23, 2010, as the “expenses for the promotion of occupants’ business affairs” and by using KRW 300,000 as the “expenses for the promotion of occupants’ business affairs” and embezzled it for personal purposes, such as living expenses.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendants did not pass the resolution of the occupant representative meeting pursuant to Article 28(1) of the Management Rules of the instant apartment.