The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

On August 20, 2014 and around November 24, 2014, the lower court rendered a judgment of innocence pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to interference with each of the instant facts charged, and dismissed public prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to violence, and sentenced a fine of KRW 500,000 to each of the following facts.

The defendant appealed against the guilty portion on the ground of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the prosecutor did not appeal the part of innocence and dismissal of public prosecution. Since the part of acquittal and dismissal in the judgment of the court below became final and conclusive as it is, the scope of this court's

The apartment management office of this case, based on the summary of the grounds for appeal, failed to comply with the corrective order issued by the Gu office having jurisdiction over the selection of an elevator business entity, and the defendant filed a civil petition, and the time was limited to 10-20 minutes.

In addition, the apartment management office is the main business to hear and resolve the complaints of the occupants, and since the defendant has made a legitimate civil petition as a resident of the apartment, it cannot be viewed as a interference with the business.

Therefore, on a different premise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the grounds for appeal, the defendant can be acknowledged as having avoided disturbance as stated in the crime Nos. 1 through 6 of the court below's judgment. In light of the victim's duty, the defendant's speech and behavior, the time when the defendant avoided disturbance, the defendant's response to the surrounding persons, including the management office, etc., the above act of the defendant exceeds the scope of legitimate civil petition filing, and thus it is recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's apartment management.