The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to Defendant 1’s damage to property, the Defendant did not destroy such damage as removing locks as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the act that the victim’s representative conference installed locks when taking electric measurements constitutes a tort that infringes on the Defendant’s property right, thereby damaging them.

Even if it is a legitimate act, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B) As to the obstruction of business, the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim management complaint D, such as avoiding disturbance as stated in this part of the facts charged, and the victim D's housing management business violates the relevant statutes, and the act of defraudation in collecting management expenses, etc. without authority does not constitute legitimate business. Therefore, the Defendant's act does not constitute a crime of interference with business. However, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise is erroneous and adversely affected the judgment

C) Although the Defendant did not assault the victim E and F as stated in this part of the facts charged, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, and found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on a different premise, since the victim’s representative meeting was not in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and did not have management authority, and the content that the Defendant committed the act of defraudation while collecting management fees, etc. without authority is true, the Defendant did not indicate false facts, and it did not constitute an act for the public interest, and thus, the illegality of this part of the facts charged should be avoided. However