All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant passed a resolution of the Property Management Committee under D, thereby passing all necessary procedures to affix a written consent for road designation. Even if the above Property Management Committee did not pass a resolution on the consent to designate a road, the Defendant thought that the resolution was made and affixed a written consent for road designation, and thus, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional occupational breach of trust.

Furthermore, even if the defendant's act cannot be deemed to have suffered damage from D, and even if the damage was caused to domestic affairs, since the land in this case (the Jeju F, G) was used for the passage of residents for a long time, the permitting authority may designate the road through the deliberation of the Building Deliberation Committee without the consent of D, which is an interested party. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there exists a causal relationship between the defendant's act of preparing the letter of designation of the road and the damage of the

B. The sentence (one million won of a fine) imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant land constitutes collective ownership, and if the instant land is designated as a road, there are considerable restrictions on the exercise of ownership to the said land, so the act of designating a road constitutes “disposition of collective ownership”. The disposal of collective ownership shall be in accordance with the articles of incorporation (Article 275 of the Civil Act) and the articles of incorporation (Article 15 of the Municipal Ordinance provides for “acquisition and disposal of property” as the matter of a general meeting resolution. As such, the consent to designate a road for the instant land ought to be made after the resolution of the general meeting in principle.

However, Article 16 of the above Ordinance stipulates that "other matters that contribute to the welfare of the residents" shall be resolved by the Development Committee, and there may be room to interpret that the act of designating roads constitutes "other matters that contribute to the welfare of the residents," but this case shall also be interpreted.