Nevertheless, the court below which acquitted the Defendants has erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. According to the articles of incorporation of the instant association, the disposition of withholding facilities shall be subject to the resolution of the general meeting of the association members (Article 51(2)), and there is room to be an issue as to whether the legal validity of the resolution of the board of directors, which was delegated to the board of directors, can be recognized. However, insofar as the resolution of the general meeting and the resolution of the representative council by successive delegation thereof exists, there was an awareness of illegality that the Defendants

It is difficult to conclude it.

The board of directors decided to sell at least the price of an apartment unit for a partnership at the price of the partnership, and one of them decided to sell the apartment unit for a partnership at the street of the partnership members. It is a breach of trust in that the decision to sell the apartment unit for a partnership is against the duty of business in that it does not go against the decision to sell the apartment unit for a partnership, which is the selling price for L, and that the reason for such decision is to pay the financial interest of the partnership

or the Defendants had the intent to commit a breach of trust.

It is difficult to recognize it.

Therefore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone that the Defendants violated the duty of the union.

The judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to see otherwise and there is no other evidence to prove it is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts

3...