A fine shall be imposed on the defendant 2,00.

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the first instance judgment) thief: The Defendant did not take a notice by mail, and even if having taken it out, the notice does not constitute larceny because it has no property value. Even if there is property value, the above notice is an illegal inducement which was put into place without the approval of the head of the management office, and thus, the Defendant’s collection of the above notice in the capacity of the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives constitutes a justifiable act.

B) The point of causing property damage: There is no fact that the Defendant destroyed the banner by cutting it. 2) In fact-finding (the guilty part of the second judgment) the Defendant made a statement as his/her memory because of brain disease, etc., and the Defendant did not confirm the text message due to the loss of his/her mobile phone, as he/she was unable to properly memory whether he/she sent it to H et al. two years before the time of his/her testimony, and there was no fact of perjury contrary to his/her memory, and there was no intention for perjury.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (the second judgment of the court) by mistake of facts (the acquittal part in the reasoning) and the prosecutor’s evidence, despite the fact that the defendant sent a resignation of the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives as stated in this part of the facts charged, and did not comply with the request for acceptance of an air-conditioninger, it can be recognized that the defendant made a false statement contrary to memory in the court. However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts. 2) The sentence of the court below (one million won of fine) is too un

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the first and second and the second and the second judgments (not guilty on the part of the grounds) on the defendant are pronounced respectively, and the defendant is guilty of the first and the second judgment, and the prosecutor is guilty.