The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On February 24, 2016, the notice of the bid for the housing management service provider posted on the website of the multi-family housing management information system (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) is based on the contents of the resolution of the resident representative meeting by the chairperson of the tenant representative meeting who is not qualified as an executive officer, and thus, the notice of this case does not constitute a duty of protection under the Criminal Act.

In addition, the defendant deleted the notice of this case at the request of the resident who filed an application for the suspension of the Chairperson's performance of duties with respect to E, and there was no intention to interfere with the duties of the resident representative meeting.

2) The illegality of the Defendant’s act constitutes an act that does not violate the justifiable or social rules due to his duties.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is an employee of the Gyeongjin Management Co., Ltd., an apartment controlled entity, who serves as the manager of the management of the apartment complex C (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

On February 24, 2016, at the above apartment management office around 09:00, the Defendant had access to the apartment management information system website (www.k-apt.go.kr) with the ID and password of the Defendant using a computer installed at the above apartment management office, and deleted, without permission, the “written notice of the selection of the housing management business entity” posted on the above website in accordance with the resolution of the representative meeting of the apartment occupants, where the contract period with the Gyeongjin management expires and the Defendant intended to select a new housing management business entity.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the business of the tenant representative meeting by force.

B. Whether to recognize intention to obstruct duties and duties worth protecting under the Criminal Act (i) the “work” subject to the protection of interference with business under the relevant legal doctrine is an occupation or continuous work.