Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a C apartment resident in Sipopo City B, and the victim D is the head of the management office of the above apartment.

1. On March 8, 2018, the Defendant obstructed the operation of the victim’s management office by force for about 40 minutes, including the following: (a) around March 11, 2018, at the first floor of the said C Apartment Management Office; (b) around March 8, 2018, the Defendant presented relevant documents, such as elevator contracts, etc. kept in the said management office; and (c) “nicking voice for security”; (d) “nicking voice for security”; and (e) “hicking voice for the year that has passed the instant test”; and (e) obstructed the operation of the victim’s management office by force for about 40 minutes.

2. On March 9, 2018, around 09:30 on March 9, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the duties of the victim management office by force for about 35 minutes, such as avoiding disturbance, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the victim management office by force for about 35 minutes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (ctv voice recording data), ctv images and caps;

1. Relevant Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the defendant merely exercised his/her legitimate right as an apartment resident and did not interfere with his/her business. However, according to the above evidence, it is sufficiently recognized that the management office's business was obstructed by the defendant's act, and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate exercise of the right as an apartment resident.

(e).