beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. At the time of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, since all of the members of the council of occupants' representatives, the duties of the council of occupants' representatives cannot be performed, there was no specific duties of the victim who will be interfered even if the defendant had his official seal
In addition, the victim is dismissed, and there is a risk of performing his duties using his official seal even though he is not the representative of the tenant representative meeting, and the defendant has his official seal to prevent this, so it is an act that does not have intention to interfere with his duties or violates the social rules.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the council of occupants' representatives held a meeting on October 8, 2013 as N, the president of the council of occupants' representatives of the instant case, and decided to have the victim act on behalf of the president on October 1, 2013, and then applied for a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties as the respondent on November 5, 2013, but the Gwangju District Court decided to dismiss the victim on November 12, 2013. The instant apartment election commission dismissed the Defendant by voting for the same representative including the Defendant, the victim, and the victim, and the victim did not have any ground for dismissal on November 25, 2013.
On July 11, 2014, the Gwangju District Court filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution of dismissal of the representative of the council of occupants' representatives on the grounds that the procedure for dismissal was in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the resolution of dismissal of the case was not based on grounds that the victim was dismissed.