On December 13, 2016, the Defendant removed a notice of the name E in the resident E, which was posted on the bulletin board of Dong Dong Dong-dong 103, 104, 105, and 106 apartment management office D managed by the said apartment management office D, on the ground that there was no immediate content in the above apartment management office in Busan Seo-gu, Busan.

As a result, the defendant interfered with the management of apartment by force, such as attaching written notice to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Application of the provisions of Chapter 2-2 Acts and subordinate statutes to a copy of a public notice and C apartment image notice;

1. Article 314 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. A fine not exceeding 500,000 won to be suspended;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The notice of the decision that the Defendant removed (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) was posted without obtaining the official seal of the management office without stating the date of preparation or validity as the personal promotional materials of E, the president of the representative meeting of occupants prior to that content.

Therefore, the notice of the notice of this case does not correspond to the legitimate business of the managing director, and thus the notice was removed.

Even if it does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

B. The written notice of this case does not contain any information that the occupants should know, and it appears that it was posted upon E’s personal request due to the lack of the official seal of the management office, the date of preparation, and the term of validity. At the time the Defendant removed the written notice, the period of election of the chairperson of the new resident representative meeting, which was at the time of the removal of the written notice of this case, was at a harsh suspicion of misconduct

Therefore, the defendant's act of removing the notice of this case constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate social norms.

2. The judgment of this court is legitimate.