The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles asserted by the defendant in the judgment below.

① In order to interfere with the affairs of B apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”), to impair honor, and to disarm the 17th council of occupants’ representatives, the victim set up a banner (hereinafter “instant banner”) as indicated in the facts charged in front and rear door.

② Although the Defendant, as a general manager managing the apartment of this case, demanded to remove illegal banner and store it in the management office and bring it to the victim, there was no damage to the property since the victim did not bring it to the management office.

③ According to Article 49 subparagraph 2 of the Joint Management Rules, when installing or attaching advertisements, signs, or marks, the management office, which is the management entity, has obtained the consent of the management office, but the victim arbitrarily installed the banner without obtaining the consent of the management office.

This constitutes an illegal inducement, and the defendant, who is responsible for the total management of the apartment of this case, has a duty to remove illegal attachment.

④ The instant banner constitutes an outdoor advertisement under Article 24(2)4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertisements, etc. and Promotion of Outdoor Advertisement Industry (hereinafter “ Outdoor Advertisement Act”), and constitutes a criminal act because it contains contents that slander South Korea. Since it is installed in the instant apartment, which is an exclusive residential area, it constitutes an illegal banner in violation of the Outdoor Advertisement Act, it constitutes normal business to remove it.

⑤ Under Article 12 (2) of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Ordinance on Management of Outdoor Advertisements, Etc., a banner shall be installed only at a specific place designated by the head of the Gu, but the victim violated the Act, municipal ordinances and management rules by installing the instant banner within the apartment complex.

(6)