All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant act by the Defendants of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a legitimate act that does not violate the social rules and is based on the public interest level to prevent the confusion of the visitors by delivering accurate information to the occupants of the apartment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants asserted that the above misapprehension of legal principles is identical to the assertion of the above misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in detail on the grounds that the lower court and the lower court duly adopted and investigated the following facts in light of the circumstances presented by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is justifiable.

① The agenda item was included in the initial public notice of convening the council of occupants’ representatives, and rather than placing the result of the meeting on the agenda item in blank, the outcome of the meeting is more desirable in terms of the citizen’s right to know, even if not decided.

In order to prevent the occupants of the apartment of this case from viewing the written announcement of this case, the Defendants removed the written announcement of this case and sent it to the Defendants, and it is difficult to view that the motive or purpose thereof is justifiable.

② Even if the victim had a problem in the act of attaching the public notice of this case, the Defendants could have taken other means, such as demanding the head of the management office belonging to the management office in charge of the affairs of posting and removing documents of the bulletin board to remove the public notice of this case, or posting the reflectors. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the crime of this case, which was removed arbitrarily without following lawful remedy procedures, was in conformity with the reasonableness

③ Contents contained in the notice of this case are defamation.