Even if this is justified, and the victims did not have any reason to dismiss the defendant from the representative of each Dong, but posted a notice of “9-10 D's resolution to dismiss the representative of each Dong,” and the damaged act is also justifiable, and the contents of “report on the operation of our apartment” distributed by the defendant are not false, but is not false, and the court below found the defendant guilty of all the charges of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court with respect to the destruction of documents on April 13, 2015 and on the 14th of the same month, the Defendant, the representative of each building, appointed a construction company of outer walls even if the Defendant was the representative of each building.

The fact that April 7, 2015 was not notified of convening the meeting of the occupant management committee, but there is any such circumstance.

Even if the Defendant raises an objection in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the apartment management rules, and the Defendant’s act of destroying the public notice of “a fracker repair and re-do construction guide of external walls” in the same manner as written in the facts charged does not constitute a justifiable act, since it cannot be deemed that the means or method is reasonable in light of social norms.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the destruction of documents on May 7, 2015, the lower court stated the false fact that the Defendant was “grading from the Busan National University” in the final academic background column although the Defendant had not graduated from the Busan National University at the time of election for each Dong, and the Chairperson of the Election Management Committee demanded the vindication of the facts around April 6, 2015, but the Defendant did not answer.