The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant is responsible for the management of the building of this case and its attached parking lots, since he actually performs his duties, such as collecting management expenses, even after the term of office of the manager of the building of this case expires in around 2009. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant is responsible for the management of the building of this case

2. In addition to the circumstances revealed by the lower court, Article 24(3) of the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings is either appointed or dismissed by a resolution at the meeting of the management body.

Provided, That where it is determined by the rules to be appointed or dismissed by a resolution of the management committee under Article 26-2, it shall be governed by the rules.

“The Defendant was actually performing the duties of some receiver with respect to the instant building.”

In addition, there seems to exist some aspects of the defendant's duty as a manager of the building of this case because there is no person who will leave the building of this case as a manager of the building of this case) on such circumstance alone that the defendant is in a position as a manager of the building of this case.

In the end, in the building of this case where a manager is not appointed in accordance with legitimate procedures, there is a responsibility to manage the building of this case and its attached parking lots in the management unit comprised of all the sectional owners of the building of this case.

In light of the above, the court below's decision of not guilty on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a case without proof of criminal facts is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts as pointed out by the prosecutor, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.