The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the head of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) issued a corrective order (hereinafter referred to as the “instant corrective order”) to the head of the election commission, which is the internal organ of the council of occupants’ representatives of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”). Even if the head of the Gu has issued a corrective order to the council of occupants’ representatives as the other party, the subject of the actual corrective order is the internal organ of the council of occupants’ representatives, who is the chairman of the election commission, and the Defendant is the occupant of the instant apartment. Thus, the subject of the corrective order under the former Housing Act (hereinafter referred to as the “former Housing Act”) can be the other party to the instant apartment.

Considering the substance of the instant corrective order, some defects exist in the indication of the place of receipt of the corrective order.

Even if the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case does not have a special obstacle to carrying out the procedure, such as knowing the existence of the corrective order and protesting against it, the corrective order of this case is legitimate.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts charged of this case on the premise that the corrective order of this case is unlawful.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is the occupant of collective housing as the chairman of the instant apartment management committee.

On July 8, 2013, the Defendant was requested from the occupants D and 255 members of the instant apartment, to proceed with the procedures for dismissal of E by the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives, such as “the reason for dismissal and the materials submitted by the dismissed parties should be disclosed to the occupants in advance and the voting procedure shall be proceeded with against the occupants,” which was not in progress under the collective housing management rules, and on August 5, 2013, from the office of the instant apartment election commission, the Defendant was the head of the Gu-gu, Seoul.