The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and the appellate court prior to the remanding of the case accepted part of the Defendant’s assertion and reversed the judgment of the court below and rendered

Accordingly, the defendant appealed against the guilty portion, and the prosecutor appealed against the acquittal portion.

The Supreme Court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “executive officers, etc. of unions” as stipulated in Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter referred to as “Act”) with respect to the appellate judgment before remanding.

On the other hand, the judgment was reversed and remanded before the remand.

2. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal.

A. The Defendant’s use of his money as operating expenses in the savings passbook does not constitute “loan of funds” under Article 24(3)2 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions.

B. Even if such an act constitutes “loan of funds”, it is inevitable to prevent union’s loss, and thus, it ought to be deemed as an act of emergency evacuation or a justifiable act or an act that does not have any possibility of expectation of lawful act.

(c)

The Defendant is merely a person performing the duties of the president of an association on the grounds that he/she is an extended director among the directors pursuant to the articles of association. Thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed a “executive of an association” as prescribed by Article 85 subparag. 5 of the Urban Community Act.

3. According to the evidence duly examined and adopted, the defendant's deposit of his own money in the passbook and used it as the operating expenses of the partnership constitutes "loan of funds" as stated by the court below.

It cannot be viewed as a justifiable act or an act that has no possibility of expectation of an emergency evacuation or lawful act.

All of the arguments of the defendant are rejected.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted.