The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated in the facts charged that the Defendant used the money owned by the victim's council for personal purposes, such as the victim's council of occupants' representatives, but the Defendant first disbursed the Defendant's public expenses for apartment management as the victim's council of occupants' representatives, and subsequently received the Defendant's personal money, or received the Defendant's ex post facto settlement or

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. Determination

(a) The term "the intention of unlawful acquisition in the crime of occupational embezzlement" means the intention of taking the same disposition with respect to the property of another person that is kept in violation of his/her occupational duties for the purpose of pursuing the interest of himself/herself or a third party;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do6756 Decided June 24, 2010, etc.). B.

The defendant acknowledged that he used the money owned by the council of occupants' representatives for personal purposes as stated in the facts charged, but asserts that the defendant had no intention to acquire illegal profits by first paying the public expenses incurred in apartment management to the defendant's personal money while serving as the chairperson of the council of occupants' representatives, or by paying the public expenses incurred in apartment management.

However, at the time, the defendant first paid the public expenses for apartment management to the defendant's personal money.

There is no objective evidence to prove the fact that the defendant was entitled to receive the official expenses from the council of occupants' representatives or by the council of occupants' representatives, and each statement of the card use statement submitted by the defendant (not more than 77 pages of the trial record) and receipt (not more than 80 pages of the trial record) is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid the official expenses of the council

In addition, it is against the council of occupants' representatives.