A. In fact-finding (Defendant C, F) the said Defendants did not have damaged the locking device installed in each apartment door of this case, and had lived normally with the cooperation of the apartment management office.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above defendants guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentencing of the lower court on the Defendants (a fine of one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below's determination of the mistake of facts as to Defendant C and F asserted that the above Defendants moved in normally with the cooperation of the apartment management office, namely, the following facts or circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. However, the person in charge of the J apartment management office of the instant case issued the entrance key of each apartment unit to the purchaser or notified the password of the locking system to the purchaser on the condition of return to allow the purchaser to conduct a pre-inspection prior to occupancy from July 201, 201, and the above Defendants did not fully pay the purchase price of each apartment unit. Nevertheless, the above Defendants were the members of the integrated negotiation group composed of some buyers, and were the key to the integrated negotiation group, which opened each apartment door by forcing them to install the locking system of the apartment door by using the dry, etc., and installed additional auxiliary key to each apartment unit, and as stated in the facts charged, the aforementioned Defendants interfere with each of the instant apartment units installed by force.

Therefore, the court below convicted the above Defendants of the charges.