A. The Defendant, at the time of the occurrence of the instant apartment, had a misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles with B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) out of the management office, and there was a verbal dispute with other residents. However, at that time, D competent authorities E, etc. of Nowon-gu, etc. could normally perform the audit of the instant apartment, so the Defendant’s act cannot be evaluated as “disorderd with the audit of the Nowon-gu Office.”

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) When considering the difference between the method of evaluating credibility of the first instance court and the appellate court in accordance with the spirit of substantial direct examination adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act as an element of the trial-oriented principle, the judgment of the court of first instance should not be followed without permission, solely on the ground that the first instance court's judgment on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is different from the appellate court's judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5313, Jun. 14, 2012). In light of the contents of the first instance judgment and the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, there are extenuating circumstances where the first instance court's determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance is clearly erroneous, or where it is deemed that maintaining the first instance court's determination on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is remarkably unfair, and the following circumstances are duly admitted by the evidence established.