All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles ① As to the service contract with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”), under Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “the Act”), “preparation” means not the form of the contract, but the actual form of the contract determined by the contract. The service contract was prepared on June 12, 2013 and became final and conclusive on July 11, 2013, and was final and conclusive on July 201, 2014; ② as to the criminal facts of the first instance judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the respective facts charged under Article 81(1) of the Act on the Maintenance of Urban and Residential Environments (hereinafter “the Act”), and each of the minutes of the board of directors and the minutes of the meeting, regardless of the names of the Defendants’ resolution and around July 3, 2012.

B. Sentencing is not so unfair, in light of the fact that the Defendants were committed each of the instant crimes, and the long-term association officers have contributed to reconstruction projects and their respective period of delay in disclosure is relatively short, the sentence of each of the lower judgment sentenced to the Defendants (a fine of KRW 800,000 against Defendant A and a fine of KRW 700,000 against Defendant B) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the mistake of facts, the lower court does not appear to have clearly stated the number of inputs and the period of inputs in Article 3 of the self-service contract on June 12, 2013, and it does not seem that there is any subsequent change. The witness I applied by the Defendants also to F at the time when the lower court written the self-service contract on June 12, 2012.