The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding 1) The Defendant was legally elected as D’s custodian through a special general meeting on November 16, 201, which was the preceding day of the instant case, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive that the resolution to elect G as a custodian was null and void, and thus, the Defendant did not deceiving the victim on the ground that he had the right to lease or manage the instant parking lot at the time of the instant case.

In addition, the application for the prohibition of interference with building management and the provisional disposition against entry prohibition filed by the Defendant against G on December 9, 2011 is dismissed since it was on March 19, 2012 after the instant case, and it is not directly related to the instant case.

2) On November 16, 201, the Defendant confirmed that a resolution passed by which the Defendant was appointed as a custodian was lawful and effective, and even before the instant case, the lease of the instant parking lot did not have been resolved at the meeting of the management body, and therefore, it was only that the said resolution was not passed at the time of the instant case.

In light of these circumstances, the criminal defendant had the intention to obtain fraud.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended sentence) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on January 7, 201, the lower court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the resolution to elect the administrator of the instant shopping district management group against G on January 19, 2009 is null and void,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on October 30, 201, and the Defendant convened an extraordinary general meeting for the management of the instant shopping district as of November 16, 201 with the division owner and/or voting rights delegated by 1/5 or more of the instant shopping district and convened an extraordinary general meeting for the management of the instant case as of November 16, 201 with the consent of 233 separate owners (28 members of written consent, 5 members of 228, 5 members of 201)” and the consent of 80% ownership ratio of the son.