The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the prosecutor's appeal is that the defendant finally signed and sealed the apartment management contract without being qualified as a housing manager and actually performed the duties of the head of the management office, and thus the defendant is not guilty of violating the Housing Act.

2. According to the evidence, the lower court determined that each of the contracts of this case was determined by the resolution of the council of occupants, and concluded by the head of the management office qualified as a housing manager after reviewing the contract contents, and that the defendant signed and sealed the contract; ② the contract was mainly made by the party to the contract; there were many cases where the council of occupants' representatives was printed in the column of the party to the contract; and the other party to the contract was also required to conclude the contract with the council of occupants' representatives; and the other party to the contract in relation to the issuance, etc. of tax invoices, the issue of this case is whether the defendant can be deemed to have performed the duties of the head of the management office. The purpose of the Housing Act provisions punishing the person performing the duties of the head of the management office without a housing manager's qualification is to conduct apartment management business by the person with expertise and responsibility (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6788, Dec. 22, 2011). To be found guilty of the facts charged of this case, it is acknowledged that the defendant arbitrarily selected the head of the head of the management office, and decided the contract contents.