beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Comprehensively taking account of Defendant A’s legal statement and the statement at J’s investigation agency, etc., Defendant A was well aware that the long-term repair appropriation funds cannot be used for the inspection expenses for the function of fire-fighting operation, but it did not follow the procedures prescribed by the relevant statutes and the management rules, etc. of the Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and could be recognized that Defendant A embezzled the payment of KRW 2.64,00,00 for long-term repair appropriation funds using them as the inspection expenses for the function of fire-fighting operation on April 30, 2015. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the remainder of the judgment.
B. Since the long-term repair plan for the instant apartment complex drafted around December 2013 from 2014 to 2016 did not meet the requirements prescribed in the relevant statutes, the expenditure for the treatment of foul waste, etc. is required by the resolution of the tenant representative meeting. Defendant B, without the resolution of the lawful representative meeting, may recognize the fact that the long-term repair reserve fund of KRW 6,356,720 was used for the treatment of foul waste around June 25, 2014 as the cost for the treatment of foul waste, and KRW 440,000 for the long-term repair reserve of KRW 440,000 for the treatment of septic tanks around July 10, 2014 and embezzled it for business purposes, the lower court erred in its judgment that acquitted this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was the chairperson of the Southern-gu Council of Residents of H apartment from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2015. Defendant B was the managing complaint of the said apartment from January 1, 2014 to December 30, 2014, and Defendant A was working as the managing complaint of the said apartment from January 2, 2015.
1) Defendant B and G’s joint crimes G are the chairman representing the above apartment occupant’s representative meeting, and Defendant B is the apartment management director.