All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and by a fine of five thousand won.

The defendant above.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Each fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles 1) 1) The fact-finding of a private document forgery and the uttering of a falsified document is not specified in the facts charged, and the method of prosecution is invalid as it violates the provisions of law, and thus the judgment dismissing a public prosecution ought to be rendered.

The defendant shall not have a staff member of the library prepare a written sentiments of the parties, nor shall he submit it to the court.

Since there was an implied consent of the persons in the name of the document, it does not constitute the same as the perjury.

Even if it falls under the category of private document perjury, illegality is excluded because it is recognized as an act for the interest of the holders of the private document.

B) In full view of the fact that many occupants have consented to the filing of a civil lawsuit, the prosecution's disposition without suspicion, the defendant is the resident representative, etc., the defendant did not have the intention to prepare the private document for qualification.

Even if it falls under the preparation of a private document for qualification, illegality is excluded as a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, and it does not constitute a crime.

The responsibility under Article 16 of the Criminal Code is excluded as an act committed by mistake.

C) The Defendant of interference with each business was demanded by J, other than the occupant’s representative, to hand over the books of management expenses, and the Defendant did not separately prepare and keep the books other than the details of deposit and withdrawal of the passbook at the time. Therefore, there was no intention to interfere with the business, and such refusal alone does not constitute “power” as referred to in the crime of interference with the business.

The defendant did not request the driver to leave a motor vehicle on the cover of the fire pumps facility, and the fire-fighting inspection was not conducted, so there was no intention to interfere with the business.

Since the defendant thought that J is not a legitimate representative of the residents living in the Republic of Korea, the defendant posted an article on the elevator and the entrance wall, there was no awareness of false facts.