Defendant

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since a victim of mistake of facts was appointed as D Co., Ltd. auditor around 1991, he did not perform his audit duties at all until March 31, 2013, and the victim of mistake of facts did not perform its audit duties at all.

3. 26. The term of office expires and there was no actual eligibility for audit and inspection, and there was no intention to conduct audit and inspection, so it cannot be said that it is a D Co., Ltd. auditor.

In addition, the defendant did not have intention to interfere with the audit duties of the victim because the victim judged that he/she is not qualified to audit and prevent access to the victim.

B. The Defendant of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely locked a passive entrance in order to prevent the victim from putting a complaint about the replacement of management and leaving the D Co., Ltd. office.

This is justified as a legitimate act.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim was appointed as an auditor of D Co., Ltd. on April 12, 2007 and was reappointed on March 31, 2010; and (ii) the status of the auditor has been continuously recognized as the auditor because the auditor was not appointed (Evidence No. 7, 46 pages); (ii) the victim, as the auditor, requested the holding of the board of directors on December 20, 2013 (Evidence No. 4 pages of the evidence record); (iii) the victim, as the representative director on December 26, 2013 and December 27, 2013, proposed that the office of D Co., Ltd. was removed, but the Defendant was unable to enter the office (Evidence No. 49, 50, 40, 46, 46, 46, 46, 2014).