Since the victim did not want to implement a special election for the same representative, it is not established that the defendants interfere with the duties of the chairperson of the apartment election management of the victim.

The Defendants merely known that they were disqualified because they did not comply with the request for the submission of the victim's repeated criminal facts certificate, and did not attach a public notice stating that they did not have submitted a criminal career report once.

Defendant

A had not been aware of the apartment situation with the apartment management complaint, and was given a public notice upon the direction of the tenant representative meeting. Defendant B was only in charge of the former president's work on behalf of the president.

B. The Defendants deemed that they were disqualified for the victim’s electoral management member because they did not comply with the request for the supplementation of documents on criminal facts, and only attached a written public notice.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendants did not have any intention to interfere with or defame their duties.

The defendants' acts of misunderstanding legal principles are excluded from illegality due to work as a manager or as a representative of the tenant representative director.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment imposed by the court below (the fine of three million won, respectively) is too unreasonable, since the defendants were involved in the course of performing their duties as the chief executive officer and the representative director of occupants' representatives.

Judgment

The following are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts.