The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A and B shall be sentenced to a suspended sentence.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A and B (Feng-type 500,000 won) of the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.

B. Although Defendant C (De facto misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles) is merely a personal information handler, not a person who has managed or processed personal information of the head of the apartment management office, and thus is not recognized as a public contest relationship with Defendant A and B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant C’s assertion, there is no legally fixed type of conspiracy with Defendant A and B, and there is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there was no overall conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to jointly process and realize the crime in a certain crime, there is a conspiracy of conspiracy between several persons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8507, Jan. 26, 2006). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① The management rules of the apartment house of this case provide that “When the president or auditor of the council of occupants’ representatives falls under grounds for dismissal, the management rules of the apartment house of this case may request dismissal by resolution with the consent of the majority of all occupants or members of the council of occupants’ representatives or with the consent of the council of occupants’ representatives, etc., and the chairperson of the management body shall prepare and keep the minutes of the meeting.”