A. Although the court below asserted that the defendant's act was not contrary to the act of business or social norms and was illegal as it constitutes a justifiable act, the court below omitted its judgment. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the omission of judgment.

B. The judgment of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, although G, who is an employee of the management office, did not have had red painting on the banner of this case, and the management office, had red painting on the banner of this case, but the court below judged that the defendant damaged the banner of this case by misunderstanding the facts.

C. The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, instructed the employees of the management office to delete only some phrases that may cause confusion to the visitors to apartment buildings among the contents on the banner of this case. This constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the act due to the duties of the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives of apartment C, or social rules.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of the instant case’s assertion of omission of judgment, the Defendant asserted in the lower court that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act under the Criminal Act, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds: (a) the summary of the evidence of the lower court’s judgment shall not be deemed to constitute an act that does not go against social norms: (b) the Defendant’s act

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be deemed to have a omission of judgment by the defendant, and even if the judgment of the court below was omitted in the judgment of the court below as alleged by the defendant, it is next to the following.

As seen in the paragraph, it cannot be recognized that the defendant's ground for denying illegality exists.