The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s punishment (one million won of fine) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant, as to the damage to property, made a request to the reconstruction association for a wrongful report on the process of information disclosure at the board of representatives to correct the error of information disclosure and to make a statement on the part of the general meeting participants of the general meeting of the modification of the construction project. The Defendant requested the association to duplicate the above receipt on the receipt of the request for information disclosure due to the lack of information disclosure that the association refused for a long period of time and made public disclosure, and the association’s refusal to do so, and the Defendant and E did not have any intention to damage the receipt while the receipt was teared in the process. (2) The misapprehension of the legal principle as to obstruction of business and insult was requested by the board of representatives to make a false report on the process of information disclosure and to leave the meeting at the level of a protest to correct it, which constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, is dismissed.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the receipt was forced by the head of an association which controls the removal of the receipt with the awareness and intent that the defendant would impair the utility of the receipt certificate kept by the reconstruction association. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in light of the legal principles and its judgment, and it is reasonable to challenge the Defendant’s appeal at the board of representatives.