A. Since misunderstanding of facts removed a notice attached to each elevator, the Defendants again brought about within 2 to 3 hours, and thus, damaged the property.

or interference with the duties of the council of occupants' representatives;

(Specificly, Defendant A was removed and re-entered at the request of the attorney to send the notice to the attorney, and Defendant B was removed to copy at the request of the attorney on September 16, 2012 that the crime committed on September 17, 2012 was sent, and again was removed in order to verify the contents of the notice at the request of the attorney on September 17, 2012. Defendant D and E removed the article of a local newspaper rather than the notice, and the crime committed on September 20, 2012 was not the defendant at the time of the notice. Defendant D and E did not read the contents of the notice due to the elevator lighting and could not read the contents of the notice at the point of specification).

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A, B, and C: each fine of 500,000 won, Defendant D, and E): each fine of 300,000 won is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, including the witness I’s statement and the fact-finding to the H apartment management office of the lower court, etc., on the CCTV screen submitted by the Prosecutor, i.e., the internal situation of the elevator at the time of two to three hours after the Defendants were removed from the public notice, but the employees of the management office can immediately re-printed the same public notice after confirming that the public notice has ceased to exist. If the public notice was again attached as the Defendants’ assertion, the management office could not know the fact that the public notice was removed, and it would not be necessary to attach a new public notice.