Defendant

A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B's imprisonment of 6 months, Defendant C's imprisonment of 10 months and Defendant D's imprisonment of 8 months.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B The representative of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H (the apartment of this case), Defendant A is the Director of the Management Office of the apartment of this case, Defendant C is the employee of Company I, and Defendant D is the employee of the Management Office of the apartment of this case.

[2014 Highest 549] J Co., Ltd. (President K) completed construction on October 27, 2008 as the contractor of the instant apartment remodeling project, but did not receive construction cost of KRW 2,600,853,059 from the owner L Co., Ltd., and thus, occupied the instant apartment and exercised lien from the time of completion of construction.

On August 2, 2012, Co., Ltd. purchased a significant portion of the apartment of the instant case in KRW 8.7 billion, and the apartment management body of the instant apartment of this case was issued with a unique number from Mapo on January 14, 2013, and there was an ordinary horse bidding on the issue of K and the acquisition of the common apartment facilities under the lien.

1. On March 10, 2013, Defendants A, B, and C conspired with each other, and occupied by K around October 10, 2013, and replaced the 6 electronic key, communication room, disaster prevention room, MDF room, underground machine room, guard room, and valve room, which were installed in the electrical unit for the instant apartment facilities of the apartment complex of this case (EPS) where the lien is exercised, with the e-mail replaced by the e-mail.

Accordingly, the Defendants interfered with K's lien duty by force.

2. Defendant A

A. On February 19, 2013, the Defendant removed, without permission, two copies of the notice of prohibition of entry and exit attached by K as a site A4 from the glass window of the shopping mall No. 112 of the instant apartment.

B. The defendant on the 23th of the same month.

The public notice of the exercise of lien attached by K in size two times the paper A3 shall be removed from the glass window of the commercial entrance, such as paragraph (1), without permission,

C. The defendant's explanation

3. Around 15:38, at the entrance of the apartment commercial building of this case, K removed, without permission, two copies of the notice of the exercise of lien, which was attached with a size of two times as paper A3.

In this respect, K's lien duty was hindered by force.

3. Defendant B

A. On February 17, 2013, the Defendant rendered the instant case around 12:38.