All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that the facts charged in this case were not guilty on the grounds that there were errors in the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

1) The election management commission’s selection of E apartment (hereinafter “E apartment”) is invalid in itself by omitting the contents of “the method of determining the members when the number of applicants exceeds the recruitment number,” unlike the instant apartment management rules in the notice of recruitment of the election management commission members. ② Even if the above recruitment notice is valid, I merely stated that “the person who has registered as a resident in our apartment complex over 20 years old” was eligible in the above recruitment notice, but I selected as the election management commission member did not have registered as the apartment in this case; ③ Furthermore, in the receipt and delivery register of the election management commission members and the registration receipt certificate of the election management commission members, there is a trace of operating as if I applied for the normal election management commission member, and I appears not to have applied for the actual election management member. Thus, the non-qualified election management member’s progress is not subject to protection under the Criminal Act, and thus, it is not subject to protection of business.

2) Although there was a dispute between the Defendants and the election management members, since a meeting was held under a police officer’s entrance, there was no interference with the duties of election management members.

3) The Defendants, despite the right to attend a meeting in accordance with the apartment management rules of this case, were engaged in acts such as the facts charged in order to oppose the members of the election management committee as they prevented the attendance of the meeting. Thus, such acts constitute justifiable acts that do not violate the social rules.

B. The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: a fine of 2,00,000, Defendant B, and C), respectively.