The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal doctrine 1) Claim that the instant commercial building is not owned by the Victim E-building Housing Association (hereinafter “victim Association”) (hereinafter “G”), G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) (hereinafter “F apartment building”) is the main building consisting of 102, 103, 104, 105 (hereinafter “F apartment building”) and 105 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

In common, as the owner of individual commercial buildings, the number of units Nos. 102 and 103 were sold to H, 104 and 105 respectively to H, 105.

② Under the above sales contract with H and I on February 19, 2008, the victim union entered into an agreement with H to transfer the registered name of the right to request the transfer of ownership under subparagraphs 102 and 103, 104 and 105 to I (hereinafter “the agreement on transfer of each of the instant provisional registrations”), and the registration of transfer on February 20, 208 was completed.

The substance of each of the instant provisional registration transfer agreements is the sales contract of the instant commercial building, and the Defendant received 240 million won from H in the agreed sale price pursuant to the agreement on the transfer of provisional registration of this case with respect to 102 and 103.

③ The agreement on the transfer of each provisional registration of this case cannot be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name.

2) Since the sales proceeds of the instant shopping mall used the money received as sales proceeds in accordance with the agreement on the transfer of each of the instant provisional registrations, the payment of construction proceeds and the amount of partnership obligations should be excluded from the amount of embezzlement, it should be excluded from the remaining property of the association.

3) Other assertion of misunderstanding of facts (1) G occupied the instant commercial building since February 20, 2008.

(2) The Defendant was unaware of the fact that H sold 102 units to L and 103 units to K.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty is erroneous or erroneous.