A. As can be seen through N’s testimony at the lower court, Defendant A drafted “the letter of public notice of election of representatives by floor” as of April 21, 2017 in the name of the representative meeting of the owner of the instant officetel, and “the letter of public notice of election of representatives by floor” as of April 24, 2017 and “the letter of public notice of each floor representative” as of April 24, 201, respectively (hereinafter “each document of this case”).

On the other hand, Defendant B, upon Defendant A’s request, attempted to attach the above notice to a bulletin board, etc. on April 21, 2017, and did not have been at the scene of preparing each of the above documents. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that Defendant B committed the relevant crime in collusion with Defendant A.

B. The Defendants stated that “The standard bylaws of the instant officetel give priority to the self-governing rules, so the owner of the instant officetel may become the representative regardless of the retention period,” who obtained qualification as a housing manager for the preparation and event of qualification-based private documents, and who is in the position of the head of the management office of other officetels.”

Accordingly, the Defendants, who are not legal experts, believe that they can be the chairman who is the representative of the Defendant B, and prepare and submit the written withdrawal of the lawsuit in the capacity of the chairman of the meeting of the representative of the instant officetel owners. As such, the Defendants did not have any intention on qualification enhancement.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, stated the following circumstances, namely, ① to the effect that “H, as an acting representative at the time, submitted a resignation letter with heavy stress related to the election of each floor, did not participate in the election process, and did not delegate authority to the Defendants,” consistent from the investigation process, and ② to the effect that Defendant B and H did not delegate authority to the Defendants.”