The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) is as follows. The facts charged in the instant case are not guilty.

A. Each amount indicated in the list of crimes attached to the judgment of the court below is not personal funds used by the defendant, such as expenses paid by the office employees of the Seocho-si to visit to conduct a practical inspection related to the apartment group construction, expenses for purchasing a printer for the purpose of using the representative meeting of apartment occupants, expenses for purchasing daily necessities to support the elderly living, etc.

B. The instant apartment management rules do not specify the specific purpose of operating expenses.

In addition, the representative who is a member of the tenant representative meeting is not able to pass a resolution of the tenant representative meeting because the representative is partially vacant.

On the other hand, if there is no specific content about the use of operating expenses for apartment management rules, the Mayor/Do governor should comply with the management rules.

In this situation, the defendant used operating expenses in accordance with Article 8 of the Gangwon-do Management Rules which set the specific use of operating expenses.

Therefore, there is no intention to acquire illegal profits for the defendant.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination is made.

According to the records, the amount consumed by the defendant on the date and time set forth in No. 31 of the crime sight table in the decision of the court below can be recognized as facts which are not 65,000 won but 6,500 won (in the investigation record No. 120 of the investigation record), and there is no evidence to deem that the amount consumed on the above date and time exceeds

The court below erred by misunderstanding the amount of embezzlement and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion is still subject to the judgment of this court, so it is considered differently in this paragraph.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court.

A) The relevant provisions pertaining to this case are as follows, and the apartment management rules of this case are as follows.