All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The board of directors in D’s text resolved to sell real estate owned by the members among the doors trusted to the members, and accordingly, in order to register the ownership transfer, the court must, as a matter of course, cancel the right to collateral security established in the name of the above real estate. Thus, Defendant A instructs Defendant B to prepare meeting minutes necessary for cancellation of the above right to collateral security in order to perform his duties as the chairperson of the above sentence. 2) Defendant B merely performed his duties as a financial director according to Defendant A’s instructions, so there is no intention or illegality, and there is little possibility that Defendant A would not comply with Defendant A’s instructions.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found guilty of each of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendants prepared meeting minutes without holding a board of directors on the ground that, despite being aware of the necessity of the resolution of the board of directors in order to cancel the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the neighboring facilities of this case, the Defendants did not have to hold the board of directors on the ground that they spent considerable expenses in holding the board of directors, ② the Defendants did not obtain consent or permission from F, H, and J while preparing the above meeting minutes, and Defendant B also recognized the fact that the minutes were prepared at will without the consent of the above nominal owner (the investigation record 120, 122 pages), ③ the Defendants kept the seals of the directors in the office in the ordinary door, and the expenses incurred at the time of holding the board of directors.