The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not order the staff of the Lee Gan-do Center to enter the victim’s house. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, that ordering the Corporation to restore the original state to the president of the apartment occupant’s representative meeting after the expiration of the lease contract period with the victim, constitutes a justifiable act.

2. Before examining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor applied Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act in the trial before examining the reasons for appeal by the Defendant, and the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment by adding “Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act” to “Article 34(1) of the Criminal Act,” and since this Court permitted this, the

However, despite the amendments to Bill of Indictment, the defendant's argument in the grounds of appeal is still subject to the judgment of this court, which will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

A. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of fact: (i) the employee F of the Lee Jae-gu, who was requested to transfer the children’s house, called the phone number sent to the client after arrival at the child care center on April 5, 2015; and (ii) the Defendant was the head of the apartment management office at that time.

G was unaware of the fact that the employee of the relevant institution visits a childcare center, and ③ was reported on the guard business on the day.

I issued the key to the warehouse (public facilities for residents) where articles in the child care center have been stored to the defendant.