The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that Defendant 1 took the instant short-term measure as the president of the management body constituted a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thereby convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The victim with lack of reason for the short-term measure consented to the Defendant’s short-term measure by submitting a written statement and a written confirmation that the Defendant would recognize the short-term measure or consent to the short-term measure in a case where the unpaid management expenses are not paid twice prior to the instant short-term measure by the agreed deadline. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the Defendant alleged that the instant short-term measure was unlawful as an act based on the consent

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant B’s mistake of facts in collusion with Defendant A, the president of the management body, at the time, did not take a short-term measure, and the lower court erred by misunderstanding the facts and sentenced Defendant B guilty.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000,000, is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding legal principles should be determined on an individual basis based on the following circumstances: (i) the motive or purpose of the act is justifiable; (ii) the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2899, Apr. 15, 1994, etc.). The lower court should meet the following requirements: (i) the legitimacy of the motive or purpose; (ii) the means or method of the act; (iii) the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; and (v) the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method (see