The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In other words, the Defendant did not have any intention to acquire the illegal acquisition of embezzlement on the ground that the Defendant did not have any intention to acquire the illegal acquisition of embezzlement by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship in which he had to return the defect guarantee insurance

Therefore, even though the Defendant was acquitted, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. The defendant guilty for an unfair sentencing

Even if the court below's sentence (3 million won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of Ulsan-gu D (hereinafter “the instant loan”) 401, and around March 14, 2007, the Defendant received 12,270,000 won of the defective repair deposit paid from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance to repair the defective repair of the foregoing loan from the victims, E, and was entrusted with the custody of the deposited money in the capacity of the occupants as the representative of the occupants, after being delegated by the aforementioned residents, including the victims, to the Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of the Defendant.

The defendant shall pay the residents' request for the repair of defects with respect to the above defect repair deposit which is owned by the victims, and if the new representative is elected to receive the request for the refund of the above defect repair deposit from the new representative, it shall be immediately returned.

Nevertheless, on October 14, 201, the Defendant refused to return KRW 10,169,70, out of the defect repair deposit that the Defendant is in his/her custody for the purpose of repairing defects from the residents of the above loan, E and G, etc., such as victims, around October 14, 201, without justifiable grounds.

B. The following reasons for the judgment (the facts and circumstances are recognized by the evidence adopted by the court below) are merely the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.