Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

2. The following circumstances duly adopted and examined by the lower court, namely, ① At the time, D apartment was in progress with the water tank melting construction; ② the water tank melting construction is conducted after the water tank cleaning; ② double cleaning cost occurs; ③ the Defendant, who was the managing director of D apartment at the time, requested the G Co., Ltd., which was within the water tank cleaning company, to postpone the cleaning of the apartment water tank for the first half of 2015, and ④ among them, the G Co., Ltd. was cleaning on June 30, 2015, which was the last day of the cleaning.

In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant, who sent a notice box to the management office, requested that the construction of the water tank for the above apartment does not exceed July 10, 2015; and (b) the Defendant thereafter requested that the construction of the water tank for the above apartment shall be completed within the limit of July 10, 2015; and (c) G stock company, as long as there is no benefit from the annual cleaning of the water tank, and there is no reason to not implement the construction, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, who served as the management office for D apartment, failed to clean the above apartment tank for the overall period of 2015.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.