The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant’s apartment B on January 26, 2019 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) Notice of the conclusion of a contract for the establishment of a base station in the name of the council of occupants' representatives (hereinafter "the first notice")

(2) Since the Defendant collected the opinions of the resident opposing the contract where the above notice was posted after removal, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had impaired the utility of the above notice. (2) The Defendant removed the notice that was published on February 5, 2019 (hereinafter “the second notice”, and combined the first notice and the second notice, “the instant notice”) and stored the notice in the bulletin board without damaging it, and returned it to the management office. As such, the Defendant did not have impaired the utility of the above notice and did not have intention to damage it.

3) Each act of removing the written public notice of this case by the Defendant constitutes a justifiable act that is dismissed in illegality by resisting the victim to conclude a contract for the installation of a Handphone base without undergoing due process and to resisting the decision to hold a residents’ general meeting. B. The sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's grounds for appeal 1.A. 1-1 among the grounds for appeal. After the defendant removed the first public notice, even if the defendant collected the opinions of the residents opposing the contract that was publicly notified in the above public notice as stated in the evidence No. 23, it is not different that the owner of the above public notice changed the previous use state of the public notice formed according to the intention of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case, which is the owner of the above public notice, and made it temporarily impossible to use the

2) The Defendant also asserted not guilty in the lower court’s judgment to the same purport as paragraphs 1.A. 2 and 3 of the Reasons for Appeal, and the lower court on this point.