A. Since the Defendant had lawfully held a clan C (hereinafter “instant clan”) on March 1, 2009 and appointed as the president, the Defendant’s resolution of the clan on September 10, 2009 (a decision to set up a collateral security on September 10, 2009, the property of the clan I, which was the property of the clan, was also valid.

Therefore, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment based on the resolution of the instant case (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment”) is not recorded as false. Even if there is a defect in the procedures for convening a clan on March 1, 2009, the registration is merely a mere reason for revocation, not a reason for invalidation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Unless there are special circumstances, the general meeting of a clan is valid by a resolution of the clan general meeting, which is held without a notification for convening a clan, by individually giving each member an opportunity to participate in the meeting, discussion and resolution by determining the scope of the members of the clan subject to notification for convening a clan, and by providing each member of the clan with an opportunity to participate in the meeting, discussion, and resolution of the general meeting of the clan, which

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the number of members of the clan of this case is up to 80. The defendant had Q, F, M, R, etc. attend the clan meeting on March 1, 2009, but it can be acknowledged that Q, F, M, and R, etc. had each member of the clan of this case participate in the clan meeting on June 29, 2009, and did not give notice for convening the clan to all members of the notified clan.

Therefore, the clans' meeting on March 1, 2009 is null and void, and the resolution of this case is null and void, and the registration of establishment of mortgage of this case based on the resolution of this case is not recorded falsely.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. All the records of this case and arguments on unreasonable sentencing are shown.