The scope of appeal submitted by the prosecutor is "total", but the grounds of appeal are only stated in the grounds of appeal concerning obstruction of business, which is the primary facts charged, and no grounds of appeal concerning the ancillary facts are stated in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the part of the conjunctive charge is subject to the conclusion of the judgment of the court below, and the reason for the judgment is not stated separately.

2. After the victim of the gist of the appeal by the prosecutor completes restoration work in the guard room, the duties of managing the visitors to the commercial building in the guard room shall be substantially well protected.

It cannot be readily concluded that there was no work subject to protection for the victim company by appointing G as a manager at the meeting of the management body.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the person who is the head of the management body of the Jung-gu Seoul Central District Office C, D is the sectional owner of the said commercial building, and the victim E, a management body and D, to which the Defendant belongs, are in civil and criminal disputes over the management right issues of the said commercial building. In the process, the victim E, a stock company, newly constructs a guard room for performing construction of the said building under the name of preservation act, etc. according to the court’s decision, and has performed the management duties of the said C, at all times, through the said D.

The Defendant, around November 15, 2012, at the above C Market Guard Office around 16:30, notified the F, a guard employee belonging to the management body, of the key number of the guard room and to the guard room.