Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as it rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”) requested the sale of the apartment building to G in Ansan-gu, Seoul-si, with the construction of “E” apartment building in both weeks D.

The defendant is the representative director of G Co., Ltd.

G entered into an agency contract with H 'E' apartment with the purpose of housing construction and sales business.

I is a person who has served as a service employee of H.

On March 12, 2014, the Defendant entered into a contract with H Co., Ltd. for vicarious recruitment of its members, and entered into a contract with H on March 12, 2014 with the content of supporting the production of a banner and fine in the event that the Defendant posts a banner on the traffic sign, street trees, utility poles, etc., which is a place where the display of advertising materials, etc. is prohibited.

I was employed by H, and received the same banner, around May 20, 2014, posted 28 advertising placards on the traffic signs and streetlight poles near Dongbcheon-si, Dongbcheon-si, with the content of “J”, and posted 28 advertising placards on the areas or objects prohibited from displaying advertisements, such as in the list of crimes attached to the lower judgment.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with I in order to post a banner at a place where advertisement is prohibited.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated as follows.