The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) at the time when the Defendant received a request for duplication from D, he/she had both duties as a president and director as stated in the facts charged, and such request for duplication is not received as a director as a proxy for the president’s duties.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have the status under Article 86 subparag. 6 of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “instant applicable law”).

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail, on the grounds that the Defendant alleged the same as above in the lower court’s judgment, stated in the column of “a summary of evidence” of the judgment.

The judgment of the court below is justified in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below. The Supreme Court precedents (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do10612 Decided March 12, 2015) presented by the defendant as the ground for appeal and the ground for appeal by the defendant are as follows: where a person who was in the position of "the Vice-Chairperson of the Promotion Committee" or "the promotion committee member" becomes "the person acting in the position of the promotion committee chairperson" in order of the operating rules due to such reasons as the chairperson's attention, etc., the court below cannot be interpreted as falling under the "chairperson of the Promotion Committee" under Article 2 of the Act applicable to the case, and it cannot be interpreted as falling under the "chairperson of the Promotion Committee" under the law applicable to the case, which is the principal agent of the crime as provided in this case, due to the failure of this case's head of the association.