The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the facts alleged by the Defendants are true, non-performance, and for the public interest. Therefore, illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 310 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts of conviction.

2. The Defendants conspired to dismiss the victim E from the position of the chairperson of the election management committee, and believed that the victim received double allowances for the representative meeting and for election management members, and seized the ballot-counting record on August 30, 201, and, on August 30, 201, the management office of the Northbuk-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), called “G election management members’ request for dismissal” under the title “(i) the victim received double allowances for the representative meeting and for the election management members,” and (ii) the victim did not duplicate the ballot-counting by taking the ballot-counting in which the seal and seal affixed by the ballot-counting witness were sealed, and then did not duplicate the ballot-counting by taking the ballot-counting record. The term “the position of the chairperson of the election management committee” to maintain the position of the chairperson of the election management committee is to deliver the document (hereinafter “the document of this case”) to the resident representative meeting to H by the resident representative meeting, and the content of the document was damaged by the resident representative and the honorary management office of the majority of the victim.

3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the following grounds.

① On April 29, 2011, Defendant B had already been prosecuted by the prosecution to the effect that “the above Defendant publicly insultingd the victim by referring to “the victim’s meeting that he saw as having been drinking a representative allowance,” and even based on the lower court’s oral statement by the witness I and the evidence submitted by the Defendants, the victim was on January 25, 201.