Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

A. The Defendant of the mistake of facts in the judgment of the court of first instance is the Seongbuk-gu Seoul apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The Defendant is entitled to broadcast by entering the central control room in the apartment management office as the president or occupant of the female president or the apartment management office. Therefore, the Defendant has no intention to engage in the crime of interference with business. 2) The Defendant’s act of interference with business by misapprehending the legal principles constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act

B. The Defendant did not remove a notice of the invalidation of election as stated in the facts constituting a crime.

The defendant issued a new public notice or gas inspection slip of the invalidation of the removed election.

B) Each of the duties stated in the instant facts charged, premised on denying the Defendant’s representative status, is not subject to protection of interference with business as illegal as an unlawful business. (C) The Defendant did not exercise power to the extent that it could suppress the Defendant’s free will of the complainant, the head of the apartment management office, and the chairman of the election management commission. (d) The Defendant’s obstruction of business and the damage to property constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, illegality is excluded. (2) The first instance sentencing of the Defendant in the judgment of unfair sentencing

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, each appeal case against the defendant against the above judgment of the court of first instance was joined in the court of first instance, and the facts constituting the crime are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one sentence is imposed on them. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be maintained any more.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the allegation of mistake of facts against the judgment of the court of first instance