The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was as follows: (a) at the time of the meeting of the representative of occupants of the instant apartment complex held on November 25, 2014, the land for the contract was decided with the consent of all representatives of occupants present at the meeting as agenda items; and (b) the Defendant was prepared to the effect that the general secretary I, present at the meeting above, passed a resolution with the consent of all of the aforementioned representatives; and (c) it is merely merely that the details added to the resident representative meeting was transferred to the representative meeting of the instant occupant. Therefore, there was all the consent of the executives as to the details added to

As such, although the above additional statements do not constitute document alteration, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

2. The defendant alleged the same purport as the grounds for appeal at the court below, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail as stated in Article 2-2(b) of the "Decision on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel". According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, all of the circumstances presented by the court below are justified.

In addition, the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence, i.e., the occupant representative meeting at that time:

G made a statement to the purport that “The case of termination of a contract with the wooden Engineering Department was presented as an agenda item, but it was decided to withhold the decision on whether to terminate the contract.” The above statement conforms to the statement in the court of original instance D and E, ② The following day of the above tenant representative meeting is asked by K of the Management Office about “whether the contract is terminated with the consent of all the holders in the resolution of the management office on the case of termination of the contract with the wooden Engineering Department,” and it is eventually argued that D is not a resolution with the consent of all the above K.