(b) Damage to property;

2.(a) B

Defendant A is innocent.

The summary of this judgment against Defendant A shall be published. The defendant B shall be acquitted as to the obstruction of business on June 22, 2017, around July 14, 2017, around August 16, 2017, around August 16, 2017, around September 8, 2017, and around September 13, 2017.

【Basic Facts】

In Seo-gu, Daejeon, the defendant A carried out a civil lawsuit on the ground that he/she has a management right, such as the right to collect management expenses of the above C from around 201 to the victim E, the defendant A directly or third party interferes with the collection of management expenses of the victim E, the victim E distributes inducements that the victim E did not meet the registration requirements for the registration and change of the legitimate superstore opening manager, the victim E is the representative of the F prosperity meeting (hereinafter referred to as the "SOC") and the victim G is the managing director belonging to the prosperity meeting, and the victim G is the victim G. The management manager and the management director of the management committee are the managing director of the above C. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Daejeon became final and conclusive on May 31, 2017.

【Criminal Facts against Defendant B】

1. Damage to property and interference with business due to removal, such as an announcement;

At around 18:00 on June 5, 2017, the Defendant removed, without permission, two copies of the notice stating the contents of the “act of interference with business” attached by G, and “business affairs” on the above C 1st, 2nd, 3rd and underground second floor, and two copies of the notice stating the contents of the “act of interference with business affairs” attached by G, and the “act of interference with business affairs” attached by the “act of interference with business affairs”. Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed four copies of the above documents owned by the victim E, and interfered with the business affairs such as publication and guidance of the victim by force.

2. Interference with business due to the distribution of management expenses;

Around 14:00 on June 14, 2017, the Defendant: (a) did not have the right to collect management expenses from the management body by the final and conclusive judgment, etc. of the above Supreme Court; (b) distributed a notice of payment of management expenses issued in the name of the management body in the name of the "Dri group" as if the management body had the right to collect management expenses; (c) thereby, the Defendant interfered with the management affairs of commercial buildings, such as the imposition and collection of management expenses of the

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and G;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police statement concerning G (Evidence No. 5, 28)

1. A G statement (Evidence No. 17);

1. Publication, etc. (Evidence No. 19) of the victim's presentation;

1. Written petition or documentary evidence submitted (Evidence No. 1, 4)

1. The Daejeon High Court and the Supreme Court Decisions (the confirmation, etc. of the existence of the administrator's abandonment);

1. On-site photographs and CCTV closure photographs (Evidence No. 18, 21);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Code (the obstruction of business, the selection of fines, Article 313 of the Criminal Code), Article 366 of the Criminal Code (the point of causing the destruction of and damage to property, the selection of fines, etc.)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant B’s argument

1. Summary of the facts constituting the crime under paragraph (1)

It cannot be said that the defendant interfered with the victim's business of commercial building management immediately because he/she sent a notice attached by the prosperity council.

2. Determination

The force of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily mean only the force that directly terminates to a person engaged in business, but may include acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to freely act by creating a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009).

According to the above evidence, the defendant's act without authority is deemed to constitute a crime of interference with business by force, since it constitutes an act of causing considerable difficulty to the management of commercial buildings by exercising the victim's free will by creating a certain physical state and making it difficult to control the victim's free will. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion is not acceptable in light of the above legal principles.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows: (a) the circumstance leading up to the instant crime; (b) the accused not guilty of considerable parts of the charges; and (c) the circumstances after the crime are considered, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Defendant A

A. Facts charged

1) Interference with business due to the distribution of printed materials on June 5, 2017

On June 5, 2017, the Defendant: “E and Seo-gu Office, etc., have become final and conclusive by the Supreme Court ruling; E has taken unfair profits while carrying out the cultivation of the representative of the commercial building. The Supreme Court ruling deals with the legitimacy of this case as a large-scale store tenant confirmation certificate on August 28, 2016 by an individual E-, which has been lost automatically; thus, it would not be meaningful by disputing the large-scale store tenant confirmation certificate on March 2, 2017. Even in the case of the Supreme Court ruling, the Supreme Court did not provide an explanation on the clear evidence inconsistent with the legal reasoning of the litigant; rather, it cannot be understood that it was dismissed without deliberation; it is doubtful whether such a ruling is justifiable; and whether the representative of the commercial building, a large-scale store manager, has rejected the business without deliberation by any force; thus, it is questionable that the Defendant did not have any legitimate inducement and management of the commercial building; however, the Defendant did not have any inducement and management of the commercial building.

2) Interference with business due to the distribution of printed materials on June 27, 2017

At around June 27, 2017, the Defendant distributed the above inducements to approximately 80 shop occupants of the above commercial building, such as distribution of printed materials stating “E’s refusal to make an investigation due to the change of words (hereinafter omitted) on the ground that “E is not a legitimate representative of our commercial building, not a representative of the Seo-gu Office, but a new letter of confirmation issued by the superstore manager by the Seo-gu Office as of March 2, 2017, and that it was false documents and operated by the Seo-gu Office, which was requested by the Seo-gu Office to conduct a joint investigation, and made a promise to disclose the truth through the investigation.” Accordingly, the Defendant distributed the above inducements to approximately 80 shop occupants of the above commercial building by distributing printed materials containing false facts that the victim E failed to meet the registration requirements for the registration and change of the superstore manager. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the management of commercial buildings, such as announcement and guidance of the victim.

B. Determination

First of all, we examine whether or not the defendant spreads false facts.

In the crime of interference with business, “disseminating false facts” means spreading facts that are not objectively consistent with the truth, and does not constitute a mere expression of opinion or value judgment. In distinguishing whether the subject matter is a fact or an opinion, determination ought to be made by taking into account the overall circumstances, such as the ordinary meaning and usage of the language, the possibility of proof, the context in which the language at issue was used, and the social situation at the time, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 2011). Moreover, in this context, false facts do not need to be the basic fact, but include cases where there is a risk of interference with another person’s business by adding false facts to a considerable extent, not with the basic fact. However, the important part at the overall purport of the content is consistent with the objective fact, and it does not constitute a case where there is no risk of interference with other persons’ business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1580, Sept. 8, 206).

We examine this part of the facts charged in light of the above legal principles. In the printed matter distributed by the defendant, E has become final and conclusive in relation to the commercial group of the stores, including E and Seo-gu Office, and taking unfair profits while he takes advantage of the representative of the commercial building, "E is a representative," "E is a legitimate representative," "E is not a legitimate representative of the commercial building," and "E is only a fake representative created by Seo-gu Office, not a legitimate representative of the commercial building, and only a representative of Seo-gu Office." Such expressions are used. In light of the overall context and circumstances at the time, the Supreme Court's decision, which became final and conclusive, is based on the validity of the confirmation letter of superstore manager on August 28, 2016, and became void because the corporation, etc. was newly established within six months, but the context was not legitimate, and if the commercialization was conducted by the head of the Gu on March 2, 2017, it seems reasonable and reasonable to hold a legitimate general meeting to conclude this portion of the defendant's expression.

Therefore, as to this part of the facts charged, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime without examining it, not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2. Defendant B

A. Facts charged of interference with business due to the blocking of entrance doors of mechanical rooms on September 8, 2017

Since there is no management authority of C by the final judgment of the above Supreme Court, the Defendant, without permission, occupied public facilities necessary for building management, such as the above C Electricity room, mechanical room, guard room, etc., and did not interfere with the access, operation, or use of the above public facilities. From September 11, 2017 to September 00, the Defendant obstructed the victim G, which is the manager of the management office, by correcting the entrance doors of the three-story mechanical room of the above C underground for about two hours.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the management of the above commercial machinery room of the victim G by force.

B. Determination

The fact that the defendant corrected the entrance of the 3rd underground floor mechanical room from around 11:00 on September 8, 2017 to around 2 hours may be admitted by evidence.

Meanwhile, according to evidence, the Defendant continued to possess and manage the said mechanical room after acquiring the management of the mechanical room from the former manager on February 1, 2016, and continuously occupied the said mechanical room. ② The Defendant took measures on September 7, 2017, such as suspending water supply pumps due to the occurrence of water supply pipes from the mechanical room, and allowed G and repairer to enter and repair the mechanical room on September 8, 2017. ③ The Defendant opened the said mechanical room if it is necessary to inspect or repair and manage the mechanical room at ordinary level. According to the above recognized facts, the Defendant managed the said mechanical room as part of ordinary work, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s access by correcting the three-story mechanical entrance of the underground floor as stated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, as to this part of the facts charged, it constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

3. Defendants

A. The facts charged as to the defendants' joint criminal conduct

around 08:10 on September 13, 2017, the Defendants: (a) around the above C Guard; (b) on the ground that the victim E enters the guard room and works for the security service in accordance with the above Supreme Court decision, Defendant A obstructed the management work of the victim’s room by having the guard of the management body, M/N, who is the security guard of the management body, sit in the front of the guard room room. Defendant B, in his hand, failed to perform the guard duty by making L move out of the guard room. Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to interfere with the victim’s C guard duty, including interfering with the victim’s C guard duty, from June 22, 2017 to September 13, 2017, thereby preventing the victim’s access or interfere with the management work of the shop by abusing the victim’s overall force during the period between the victim’s list and the victim’s obstruction of the management work of the shop by force during the period from around September 22, 2017.

B. Determination

The Defendants conspired from June 22, 2017 to September 13, 2017 to prevent access to the C Guard room or machine room on a total of four occasions, such as the facts charged, and thereby interfered with the management of commercial buildings by force.

According to evidence: (a) from May 2015 to April 2015, M was serving as the instant security guard; (b) the N was serving as the instant security guard from April 1, 2015; (c) the management manager of the D management body under the employment contract; and (d) these were continuously occupying and managing the security room to the time of the instant case in shifts; and (iv) however, G continued to leave the M working in the security room on September 13, 2017, and prevented from entering the following M, etc. In addition, as recognized earlier, Defendant B continued to possess and manage the said mechanical room after taking over the management of the mechanical room from the former management office on February 1, 2016.

On the other hand, even if the above Supreme Court ruling on criminal facts became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that the management of M, N's security room, and Defendant B's mechanical room management, which have been continuously occupied and managed from the previous point of view, are immediately unlawful, and such business constitutes a business worthy of protection, unless there are special circumstances.

In light of the above legal principles, even if the Defendants recruited the Defendants, or ordered M/N, the Defendants were in possession and management of M/N security room as part of ordinary work, or Defendant B occupied and managed the mechanical room, it is difficult to view that the Defendants conspired and interfered with the victim’s business management by force by obstructing access to, operation, and use of, the security room or the mechanical room as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, since this part of the facts charged against the defendants constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the defendant A pursuant to Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act