A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 3,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

The Defendants are the officers of the representative meeting of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Officetel, and the victims E and the management authority of the above building have been under legal disputes.

On July 18, 2013, the Defendants received a provisional injunction (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kahap627, hereinafter “instant provisional injunction order”) that “E is a custodian under the Act on the Ownership and Management of Aggregate Buildings of the instant building, and without any contractual relationship with E, the F Co., Ltd. established by the Defendants shall not distribute printed materials stating the intent to pay management expenses, etc. any more, and shall not receive management expenses,” and received notification of the above decision on the provisional injunction around the 22th of the same month.

Although the defendants are well aware of the absence of the right to receive management expenses in the Fund for the settlement of disputes, they held a meeting on August 16, 2013 and passed a proposal to prohibit distribution of printed items, such as the notice of management expenses, etc. by the victim E, to continue to collect management expenses in the F Account for the settlement of disputes.

1. On October 28, 2013, the Defendants sent a warning to the above officetel occupants on the following grounds: (a) on October 28, 2013, the Defendants sent a notice to the effect that “if the management expenses are not paid to the Management Bank F, the said officetel 2016 shall prohibit the distribution of free parking tickets; and (b) the suspension of free parking cards and the withdrawal of the disposition of payment order lawsuit shall be avoided; and (c) the said officetel occupants would not pay the management expenses to the Management Bank F.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to force to interfere with the collection of management fees for victims E.

2. On August 23, 2013, Defendant A, along with the FF employees in the instant officetel, is unable to access the notice of management expenses to the victim E by mail from August 18, 2013 to the victim E’s employees on the first floor of the instant officetel, and by force for approximately 30 minutes, including by preventing access to the notice of management expenses, G, H, etc., to be distributed by mail, and by spreading the said victim’s management expenses.