A. On November 28, 2008, D Co., Ltd., working for the Defendant of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, transferred the above officetel management work to Ctel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), and there was no act related to the management of the instant officetel or any exercise of influence thereafter.

In addition, the Defendant did not have any relationship with the instant officetel management body, and did not engage in any act interfering with power supply or access, and at the time of the instant case, the Defendant was unable to give instructions, such as measures to cut electricity, in Japan.

B. The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the record of this case, i.e.,: ① the manager of the officetel of this case, for a long time, asserting that there has been a lien on the construction cost of the officetel of this case; ② the manager of the officetel of this case is responsible for the payment of management expenses and the amount of a lien; and ③ the management body which is ordered by the buyer is organized at will to this end; ② the defendant, as the head of Seoul Headquarters of the Corporation D, has overall control over all the affairs related to the lien in order to secure unrefied credit regarding the officetel of this case (see investigation record 723 pages); ③ the defendant, as the head of the Seoul Headquarters of D, was the lessee of this case at the prosecutor’s office, occupied the tenants of this case at the same time, was removed from the office, notified the manager of the officetel of this case that he could not put electricity into the officetel of this case without the defendant’s permission, and made a statement in the management body of this case that he could not put electricity into the officetel of this case (see investigation records, 816, 82515 pages).