The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant banner was removed on April 3, 2016 and re-established by a resident without his/her name. Therefore, even if the Defendant did not post the instant banner after April 3, 2016, the same year from around February 24, 2016.

8. The lower court’s judgment convicting the entire facts charged of the instant case that up to September 1, 2000 rendered the instant banner was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the posting of the banner of this case by the Defendant is true and solely for the public interest, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act under Article 310 of the Criminal Act, or was posted according to the resolution of the temporary executive of the apartment of this case and the residents' general meeting. Thus, the Defendant’s criminal liability is contrary to the principle of self-responsibility. Thus, the lower court’s judgment convicting the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the illegality rejection, legitimate act, and the principle of self-responsibility, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant participated in the installation of the instant banner posted after April 3, 2016 (hereinafter “second banner”) and installed it by the Defendant. The instant banner installed before and after that date (hereinafter “first banner”).

may be appointed by a person.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

① Former auditor of this case’s apartment interest self-governing council

E in the investigative agency and the trial court of the party, stated that “the defendant was to see the instant banner after the destruction of the first banner and to obtain signatures from the occupants,” and at the Defendant India investigative agency.