The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and the defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants, misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, provided that they used operating expenses of the representative meeting of apartment occupants for a purpose other than the purpose stipulated in the apartment management rules, but when referring to the Management Rules of the Daegu Metropolitan City Multi-Family Housing Management Rules or the detailed criteria for the implementation of the duties of local governments, the use used by the Defendants was for personal benefits without relation to their duties or was excessively excessive beyond the reasonable scope even

shall not be deemed to exist.

Therefore, the Defendants embezzled as illegal acquisition intent merely by using the apartment management regulations for purposes other than those prescribed in the apartment management regulations.

subsection (b) of this section.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal doctrine, the Defendants used the operating expenses for items without any rules related to the D Apartment Management Rules without being aware of the chairperson of the meeting of the representatives of apartment occupants, thereby recognizing the facts of embezzlement of the victims’ property as stated in the judgment.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

(1) Article 44 of the former Housing Act (amended by Act No. 13474, Aug. 11, 2015; hereinafter “former Housing Act”) and Article 18 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act (amended by Act No. 13474, Aug. 11, 2015); and Article 18 of the Multi-Family Housing Management Act (amended by Act No. 1350, Aug. 11, 2015); “The Mayor/Do Governor shall establish the working rules that provide for the management rules that provide for the management or use of multi-family housing,” and “the occupants and users shall establish the management rules, referring to the working

“.....”