A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles ① The Defendant is deemed to have the authority of the president within the necessary and minimum scope until the new president is elected as the former president of the representative meeting of occupants of the apartment complex C at Jeju (hereinafter “the representative meeting of occupants of the instant case”). ② At the time of the instant case, the Defendant has the authority of the president of the representative meeting of occupants of the instant case.

Since it was believed that there was no intention on the preparation of a private document for qualification and the display of a private document for qualification, and ③ The defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act or the defendant's act is not a crime under the law, and there is a justifiable reason to believe that it is not a crime under the law. Therefore, the illegality or responsibility is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case is erroneous or erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. In light of the legal principles, each of the facts charged in the instant case is basically identical to the facts charged, such as the preparation of a private document for qualification as prosecuted, and the social facts constituting the basis thereof, a dismissal judgment should be rendered on the ground of double indictment.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (700,000 won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to whether the Defendant had the authority of the president of the meeting of occupants of this case, namely, the meeting of occupants of this case held a special meeting on August 18, 2014 and resolved to proceed with the voting to ask for the Defendant’s dismissal and favor of the chairman from August 30, 2014 to August 31, 2014, and according to the election result implemented by the said resolution, the Defendant was the representative meeting of occupants of this case.