A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, as the president of the relevant club area (hereinafter “instant club”), failed to know about the charter and regulations of the instant club, and did not give D and E an opportunity to vindicate prior to the resolution of expulsion for D and E on September 16, 2013, the Defendant believed that the resolution was valid at the time of the resolution for expulsion. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, paid KRW 3 million out of the instant club fund to F, who is a member of the instant club, around March 1, 2014. On March 5, 2014, the Defendant purchased the instant club at KRW 7,000,000 from the Fund. However, when D et al. was disposed of, it was found that the Defendant was unable to operate the said club by establishing the instant club under the name of the same as that of the instant club, thereby opening the general meeting of members and its remaining property to be found to have been found to have been in violation of the law by opening the remaining property of the said club to the general meeting and its remaining property.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (three million won by fine) against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, the Defendant did not provide D, E with an opportunity to explain the instant club at the general assembly held on September 16, 2013 in accordance with Article 37 of the Charter of the said club (No. 24 pages of Evidence No. 2) (Evidence No. 1, No. 55, No. 88, No. 112, etc.). Therefore, it is difficult to view that the resolution of expulsion against D, and E was lawful, and it is difficult to view that D, etc. continued to dispute the legitimacy of the said resolution thereafter.