자격모용사문서작성등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not contain any damage to the public notice given by the victim C, and the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, although it did not exercise the right to request the chairperson of the occupants' representative meeting, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. On July 9, 2016, the Defendant damaged the property under the instant charge 1: (a) in the 107-dong 107-dong 1st floor of the Busan Shipping Daegu apartment, Busan Metropolitan City, and (b) in the operation of the meeting of the representatives of the representatives of the representatives of the occupants of B; and (c) in order to interfere with C’s activities of the representatives of occupants, C et al. attached to the apartment entrance, etc. on the apartment entrance, etc., the Defendant arbitrarily removed and damaged a copy of the “public announcement” attached to C et al.
2) On June 12, 2016, the Defendant prepared a notice stating the contents of the general meeting resolution, C’s qualification loss, and residents’ reservation of management expenses in blank using a computer without authority for the purpose of uttering at the B management office. The Defendant written a notice stating, “B resident representative meeting A” at the end of the notice, without being elected as the chairperson of the B resident representative meeting, and written a copy of the notice stating, “B resident representative meeting A” at the end of the B resident representative meeting. The Defendant affixed the official seal voluntarily produced B resident representative meeting, and drafted a copy of the notice stating the fact-finding document, which is a private document, by gathering the qualification of the chairperson of the B resident representative meeting.
3) On June 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) attached a notice written in the above B apartment building 8 entrance around the same day; and (b) attached as if the notice written in paragraph (2) was duly prepared; and (c) exercised it to the apartment residents who do not know of the fact.
B. The lower court’s determination is based on the facts found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the following circumstances, namely, CCTV screen in relation to the damage of property, and the fact that the Defendant’s damage to the public announcement was confirmed at the time.