Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

A. The misunderstanding of facts as to the crime of interference with business was conducted by F as the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives held in D (hereinafter “instant building”) at the time of the instant case, but it was not selected as the representative by legitimate procedures, and thus is not entitled to conduct the management of the said building, and thus, it was inappropriate to conduct the management of the said building, and as such, F’s above management of the building is not worth protecting under the Criminal Act, since it was carrying out inappropriate duties, such as attaching

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of interference with business against the Defendants on different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendants committed the instant act in order to prevent the Defendants from damaging their honor due to the illegal public announcement by F, and to promote the normalization of the management of the instant building, which constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found all of the charges of this case guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The lower court’s respective punishment (a fine of KRW 300,000) imposed on the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with regard to partial changes in the facts charged against the Defendants, and the subject of the judgment by this court was changed by granting permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below, which is based on the initial facts charged, cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following paragraphs.

(b) mistake of facts;