업무방해
Defendants are not guilty.
1. The summary of the facts charged is the president of the G Commercial Building prosperity (hereinafter referred to as the “Commercial Building prosperity”) in Namyang-si, the representative director of the H Co., Ltd., the above G Building Management Company, the defendant C, and the defendant D are the employees of the above G Building Management Office.
The complainant I is the chairperson of the above G building management unit, the complainant J and the complainant, and the complainant L respectively, and the vice-chairperson of the above management unit, the complainant M is the general director of the above management unit, the complainant N and the complainant are the complainants, respectively, and the above management unit, P and Q are the auditors of the above management unit, the complainants, and the complainants.
G Management Group (hereinafter referred to as the “Management Group”) is an organization that is adequate for 53 owners of the above building on November 16, 2014 through a representative meeting of the management unit and management unit of the G building, and the overall management and supervision of the said G building is assigned to the organization that meets the requirements of 53 owners of the above building through the representative meeting.
On March 24, 2015, the complainant (Chairperson I) entered into a contract for the installation of ATM devices at the point of SC Bank R at the 1st floor of the above G building with the Korea Sc Bank on March 24, 2015.
The Defendants, with the knowledge of the fact that the above management unit was trying to install ATM equipment on the first floor of the above building without the permission of the president of the commercial conference and the lessee of the above building, are to obstruct the installation of ATM equipment by force. On March 26, 2015, the team for the installation of the SC Bank ATM equipment intended to install ATM equipment on the first floor of the above building. On the same day, around 15:27 on the same day, Defendant C and Defendant D attempted to occupy the place where the ATM equipment is to be installed, and prevented the installation work of ATM equipment by preventing the police officers dispatched after receiving a report from around 15:36 of the same day, from having obtained consent from the occupants.
Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C were unable to install a ATM machine by asserting that it would be justified to prevent installation, and even around 16:35 on the same day, Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C were unable to perform the installation work of the said ATM machine by blocking the installation place.
As a result, the Defendants conspired to obstruct the victims' establishment of ATM by force.
2...