On November 23, 2015, from around 10:00 to 14:00 on the same day, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s business operation by force by blocking the electric power connected to the above officetels 1002 by means of blocking the subdivision box installed on each floor, on the ground that the said victim did not pay management expenses of KRW 2,793,780 within the said officetel.

2. In this case, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, there is a legal dispute over the management authority between the defendant and the representative meeting of the occupants of the above officetel, but the defendant seems to have the right to manage the above officetel in accordance with the above Officetel management regulations and the above Officetel management agency contract. According to Article 23 subparagraph 2 of the above Officetel management regulations and the above Officetel management agency contract, the management entity may take the measures on the part of the households in arrears with management expenses, etc., but the victim failed to pay management expenses equivalent to KRW 2,793,780 for 20 months around the time of the instant case. The defendant notified that he may take the measures on the part of the victim pursuant to the management regulations if he did not pay management expenses, etc. over several times before taking the measures on the part of the victim.

In light of the above facts, the Defendant’s act of suspending electricity to the victim who has failed to pay a large amount of management expenses under the instant officetel management regulations and the management agency contract constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, to the extent that such act is permissible in light of social norms.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime.