The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 26, 2014, the part concerning the damage of property and interference with the duties of the person (i) destroyed a locking device as stated in the facts charged in this part of this part, or the opening of a locking device is AD and AC for the person who opened a locking notice of the exercise of the right of retention, and the defendant did not have any fact that he/she participated in the crime of destruction of property or interference with the duties thereof (misunderstanding of facts).

Even if this part of the victims' right of retention or H building management cannot be seen as a job worth protecting under the Criminal Act, so there is no constituting the elements of the crime of interference with business.

In addition, the illegality of the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act as a measure taken by the above victims against the point of occupying H 115 as the president of H building management without authority (misunderstanding of legal principles). (b) The part N of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) and the part N of theO stating that the defendant was at the time of the victim E, as shown in the facts charged, and there was no fact that the defendant jointly inflicted an injury on the above victim by tensioning the victim E by putting the two arms like the victim E (misunderstanding of facts).

Sentencing 1 Deliberation Sentence (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court as to whether the Defendant was involved in the damage of his/her property and interference with his/her duties on December 26, 2014, the Defendant destroyed the lock lock devices of the H 115 office, such as the facts charged on December 26, 2014, and prevented the victim J and K from having access to the said office by using a new lock device, and recognized the fact that the Defendant removed a notice demanding the exercise of the right of retention.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

1) From the investigative agency to the court of first instance, the victim K was in the position of opening a locking unit on December 26, 2014, and the key machine was a new locking device.