All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The judgment of this court on February 2, 199, is based on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the grounds for appeal (the removal of the banner of this case by the defendant constitutes a justifiable act without illegality, and there was no perception of illegality against the defendants on such act).

A. In light of various circumstances acknowledged by the first instance court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, i.e., the victim D, as the head of the management office of the apartment of this case, decided to change the heating method of the apartment of this case to the individual heating method, obtained the permission from the competent Gu office to disclose the contents thereof to the occupants, and under the order of the representative, the Defendants installed the banner of this case. ② The Defendants filed a civil petition with the competent Gu office for the defects in the resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives from the standpoint of preference to the existing central heating system. The competent office revoked the above permission on the ground that the civil petition was accepted and the consent ratio was insufficient. ③ The Defendants sent a certificate of contents demanding removal of the banner of this case to the victim, who is the head of the management office on May 7, 2012, and it is difficult to accept the Defendants’ assertion that the act of removal of the banner of this case was legitimate, even if the permission was revoked after the change of circumstances after the first instance court did not constitute a legitimate act of infringement of legal interests.

B. The Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, and motive and circumstance of the instant crime are as follows.