The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to larceny in the judgment of the lower court), the Defendant did not have any record of giving any transfer of the right to manage the center for senior citizens to the complainants elected by the new chairperson of the center for senior citizens of this case, and the right to manage the center for senior citizens still remains in the Defendant, and the complainants, etc. have brought about the goods to be destroyed by the computer of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute larceny.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant destroyed the locks installed at the entrance of the center for senior citizens of this case by an unauthorized complainant, etc. (as to the damage of property in the judgment of the court below), this constitutes a justifiable act and thus, the illegality is dismissed.

C. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence on the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the Defendant was ordered to be dismissed from the office of the president of the instant center by the Gunpo-si, the competent supervisory office on February 29, 2012; and (ii) the Defendant did not transfer the duties of the president to D, who is the president of the instant center, on the grounds that the decision of the Gunpo-si and the election of the president of the instant center was not possible on October 29, 2012 (Evidence 17, 55, 73 page); (iii) the materials in the facts charged, including the computer in which all the materials related to the work of the instant center are stored, as all the materials owned by the senior citizens and the equipment necessary for the operation of the center (Evidence 21 page); and (iii) the Defendant consented to the act of taking the Defendant’s computer, etc. on the part of the senior citizens including the complainant.