All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Article 13(2) and (1) of the Rules on the Grounds of Appeal provide that the necessary measures may be taken to cope with the illegal acts of the victim, subject to a resolution of the management body meeting. Since the Defendants’ act does not constitute the crime of interference with business, or the Defendants’ act did not constitute the crime of interference with business without the intent to interfere with business, and the Defendants’ act does not constitute a legitimate act or mistake of law.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants guilty of the crime of interference with business. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. 1) First of all, we examine whether the crime of interference with business is established. In order to establish the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not have to actually occur, and there is sufficient risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr. 10, 1992). According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the lower court, it seems clear that there is a risk of causing considerable loss to the victim, who is the sectional owner operating a golf range due to the suspension of operation of elevators. Thus, even if the victim did not actually suffer loss, such as the assertion by the Defendants, the crime of interference

And in the crime of interference with business, the intention is not necessarily required to be intended for the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another's business due to its act.