The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted all of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of the crime of occupational breach of trust and the crime of occupational embezzlement, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

1) In the instant case of occupational breach of trust, the first floor R, i.e., the 1st underground of the instant commercial building, even though there is a clear difference between the parking facilities for the steel structure sales and the parking facilities for the steel structure, has been imposed a cost for exhibition management.

In this regard, the commercial building J No. 1 of the facts charged (hereinafter “instant store”) is connected to the above R, and the use of the building ledger as in the same manner as the above R is referred to as “automobile-related facilities,” and there is no reason to treat it differently from the above R, and in fact, the store of this case is also used as exhibition, so it is also subject to the imposition of the management fee for exhibition.

Nevertheless, the general management expenses were imposed on the store of this case for a long time, and only when around November 201, 2013, the custodian C began to impose management expenses on the store of this case from the divided management expenses on October 2013, and thereafter, the Defendant, who was acting on behalf of the custodian of the victim management group, did not comply with the above measures of C.

In addition, at the general meeting of the victim management group held on October 24, 2014, a resolution was made to impose management expenses for the stores used for the exhibition hall, with the purpose of use on the building ledger, such as the instant stores, and with respect to the stores used for the exhibition hall, a resolution was made to impose them.

Therefore, it is reasonable for the defendant to impose management expenses for the store of this case as stated in this part of the facts charged. Therefore, the crime of breach of trust cannot be established in relation to the above defendant's act.

2) This part of the occupational embezzlement.