The sentence for B shall be suspended.

Defendant

A shall be exempted from punishment for A.

Defendant

A was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with prison labor for an indecent act committed by the Jung-gu District Court on April 26, 2016, and the judgment became final and conclusive on July 27, 2016, and Defendant A is the head of the Dong-gu Seoul Apartment Complex Location Council, and Defendant B is the chairperson of the same apartment management committee.

On December 23, 2015, at the entrance of the above apartment management office around 20:00, the Defendants conspired to invite 13 members, including victims D, to attend meetings for the selection of apartment management entities at the Dong representative conference room located on the second floor of the management office, and thereby preventing the victims from entering the entrance by having 7-8 private security guards control the entrance and exit door, thereby obstructing the victims’ representative affairs by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A complaint (including documents attached to evidence 2 through 7);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

1. Relevant legal provisions and the Defendants’ choice of punishment regarding criminal facts: Articles 314(1) and 314(1)30 of the Criminal Act; and the choice of fines

1. Defendant A who handles concurrent crimes: After Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 39 (1);

1. Defendant B to suspend the sentence: Fine of 700,000 won;

1. Defendant B who is detained in a workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (100,000 won per day);

1. Defendant B of suspended sentence: Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act (Special consideration is given to the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the instant crime was committed in the course of dispute over the confession and reflectivity of the Defendant, and the legality of the dismissal of the representative of the victims, and the fact that the instant apartment-related dispute is actually terminated, and the risk of recidivism is relatively less than the risk of recidivism and that the agreement was reached smoothly with the victim D

1. Defendant A exempted from punishment: The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime described in all the judgment leads to the instant crime in the course of dispute as to equity in the case of being tried along with the crime and the legality of the dismissal of the representative of victims.