The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of innocence by the court below on the summary of the grounds of appeal is that it constitutes a mistake of fact, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendant used the maintenance project cost without a resolution of the union general meeting or the board of representatives as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the defendant's use of the project cost of this case as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, its illegality is excluded.

A. On August 201, the Defendant, while working as the head of a cooperative, suspended financial support for the Si project on the ground of a domestic real estate competition, etc., and reduced the payment of benefits through corporate restructuring, etc. from around 2012 without receiving any remuneration from the head of the cooperative, etc., and disbursed only the necessary minimum cost, such as office rent, etc. to maintain the cooperative. The Defendant stated that the Defendant held a representative meeting instead of a general meeting in which considerable expenses are expected to be paid due to the shortage of funds, and made a resolution on the payment of maintenance expenses. However, it appears that the monthly entry and withdrawal details, etc. from around 2012 to around 2014 correspond to the Defendant’s above statement.

B. Article 24(3) of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments provides for the matters to be resolved by a general meeting, while the use of the maintenance project cost is also included in the above matters to be resolved, Article 25 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Residential Environments provides that the representative meeting may act on behalf of the general meeting, except for the essential matters of the general

The Act stipulates.

(c)

However, in the investigation process, the defendant submitted the minutes of the meeting in 2015 and 2016 in relation to the disbursement of maintenance project costs from 2012 to 2016.