A. The Defendant did not interfere with his duties by exercising force, such as preventing the victim, who is the head of the management office, from entering the office of the management office, etc., of the apartment as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “the apartment”).

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of fact, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its reasoning.

The following circumstances revealed by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. ① The victim, from the investigation agency to the court below, was prohibited from entering the management office of the first floor by preventing the defendant from entering the management office of the first floor, and continued to prevent the victim from entering the office of the management office of the victim, and preventing the victim from entering the office of the management office of the victim in face-to-face with the victim in front of the victim's face. ② The management office of the victim also stated that the victim's statement corresponds to the victim's statement. ② The employee F also stated the victim's statement. ③ The cell phone images taken at the scene of the crime also conform to the victim's statement. ④ The victim appears not to have entered the management office of the apartment at the time of the defendant's act, ⑤ The circumstance and result of this case, etc. ⑤ The defendant's act constitutes a obstruction of the victim's free will as stated in the judgment of the court below.