The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. The Defendant’s exclusive measure that interferes with the business of the victim G is a legitimate act, since the prior notice was given several times through a resolution in accordance with the management rules for the management of the building in order to collect delinquent management expenses.

B. The Defendant’s obstruction of business with regard to the victim H is not recognized as a public-private partnership since it received a prior report from J on the part of the victim H or was not approved by the J on the part of the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. In addition to the facts acknowledged by the lower court, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the management body of the instant building E (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) was divided into the parts that recognized B as the president and the part that recognized the victim G as the president at the time of the instant crime, and subsequently, on September 18, 2015, the application for the suspension of the victim’s performance of duties and the appointment of the person who was appointed as the executive partner of the instant commercial building management division as the executive partner of the instant commercial building management group was accepted as of September 18, 2015.

The defendant was paying management expenses to each separate account, and the defendant was well aware of these circumstances, and the defendant was able to pay the management expenses to the victim G by the end of May 2015.

Despite the commitment, the Defendant, around May 27, 2015, committed a short-term measure against the victim G on or around May 27, 2015, and ④ the Defendant took the said short-term measure.