The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There was no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant embezzled extra-management revenue and long-term repair appropriations, such as the facts charged.

Even if the defendant used non-management revenue and long-term repair appropriations as a pre-management gift expense, it is customarily widely recognized that the payment of a pre-management gift to the representatives of apartment occupants is illegal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 300,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant made a confession of all the facts charged in the instant case at the court of original instance (the second date) and reversed it as stated in the summary of the grounds for appeal at the court of original instance. The Defendant’s confession at the investigative agency or the court of first instance differs from the court’s oral statement at the appellate court cannot be said to be doubtful of the probative value or credibility of the confession. In determining credibility of the confession, the determination of credibility of the confession should be made based on the following: (a) the content of the confession’s statement itself has objective rationality; (b) the motive or reason leading up to the confession; (c) what is the motive or reason leading up to the confession; and (d) what does not conflict with or conflict with the circumstantial evidence other than the confession; and (d) whether there is any reasonable doubt in the motive or process of confession as provided in Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act or in the confession or the process of the confession.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4091, Sept. 28, 2001). B. Then, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below can be considered as a whole.