Defendant

All appeals filed by A and C and prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, C (Definite and misunderstanding of legal principles) and C submitted a written estimate of repair expenses for the heat-combined boiler repair cost of approximately KRW 4.2 million to the council of occupants' representatives. Nevertheless, the council of occupants' representatives made false data to the effect that the repair cost of the heat-combined boiler was spent of KRW 17 million to KRW 21 million. Thus, the statement made by the Defendants constitutes a true statement of fact, and even if not, the above Defendants believed that the aforementioned statement was true and there was considerable reason to believe that the above Defendants were true and that the repair cost of the heat-combined boiler was spent of KRW 20 million.

B. The Defendant A and C’s defamation constituted false facts, inasmuch as the Defendant A and C’s consent on the construction of individual heating was obtained by employing security guards. As such, the facts indicated by the Defendant A and C constitute false facts.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that judged the illegality of the defendants' timely facts should be dismissed is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

B) Defendant B and C were present at the temporary council of occupants' representatives without a member of the council of occupants' representatives, and Defendant B and C continued to make a claim without having the right to speak. Since the Defendants’ objection did not facilitate the progress of the meeting and did not deal with all the proposed items, it is recognized that the Defendants’ obstruction of business was recognized. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted Defendants A and C of the charges of interference with business affairs. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unreasonable sentencing.