The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding1) The Defendant did not have taken the signature books and preparatory materials prepared by E, etc. to hold a general meeting of the council of occupants’ representatives, and did not let others enter the lecture. 2) The council of occupants’ representatives held by E, etc., that was not a legitimate general meeting due to the defect in the convening authority and convening procedures, and thus, cannot be deemed as a duty worthy of protection.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On the assertion of mistake of facts, according to the witness E, G, and H’s legal statement and DNA image (2013-10-12-13:00), the court below lawfully adopted and examined the CD, and it can be acknowledged that many people including the defendant, expressed desire to and prevented the people who want to enter the party, and deducted materials prepared for the general assembly. Thus, this part of the defendant’s assertion is without merit. 2) The issue of whether the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act is a duty worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether the work is actually peaceful and becomes a foundation for social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencing or executing the work, that degree is subject to protection of the crime of interference with business unless it reaches sociality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382, Mar. 9, 2006). Thus, it is difficult to view that there was no dispute between residents and the general assembly meeting’s change in the nature of the apartment building or its ownership.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is independent of others.