All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, as an executive officer or employee of Defendant A (hereinafter “G”), was performing the management of G that collects and disposes of illegal inducements between Defendant B and C as an executive officer or employee of Defendant B and C, and there is no active conspiracy to commit the instant crime.

With respect to the part of the Doll joint settlement, Defendant A was authorized to occupy the management office of this case as an act of preserving the jointly owned property based on the sectional ownership of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (hereinafter referred to as the “instant condominium”) at the time of the time, and thus, did not intrude at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which sentenced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the Defendants (the defendants A: the suspended sentence of two years and the community service order, the defendant B and C: the suspended sentence of eight months and the community service order of eight months) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Code on the part of Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts is to commit a crime jointly by two or more persons, and thus the offender’s intent of co-processing is a subjective element. However, the intent of co-processing lies in the recognition of the co-processing in order to move one’s own will to practice one’s own will by being integrated to commit a specific criminal act among them, and the intention of co-processing is common sense, and it does not necessarily require any prior process.

In addition to the above judgment of the court below and the above legal principles, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below and the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, namely, whether the defendant A lost his status as the president of the existing management body by election of the president of the new management body at the extraordinary general meeting of the management body of the aggregate building of this case and the defendant.