All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal doctrine-related voting affairs of the victim of the instant election do not constitute a duty of protection under the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the illegality of the defendants' act is excluded as it constitutes a legitimate act or a self-rescue, as it is inevitable to prevent the illegal act.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won per fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Whether the voting business related to the election of a victim is a business worthy of protection under the Criminal Act or a business that is subject to protection under the Criminal Act. The term "business" refers to a business or business that is engaged in occupation or continuously and is worth protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. Contract or administrative act which is the basis of such business is not necessarily lawful. However, in a case where a certain business or activity itself has anti-sociality as much as it is considerably unreasonable in social life due to an excessive degree of illegality, it does not constitute "business" subject to protection of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002). 2) In full view of the following facts and circumstances duly adopted by the court below and investigated by evidence, the victim was somewhat defective in the process or procedure of public announcement of voting related to the dismissal of the chairperson of the resident representative council and in the process.

However, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s voting affairs related to the instant election cannot be deemed to have reached the level of being significantly unacceptable in social life, and thus, it constitutes “business affairs” worth protecting the victim’s voting affairs in fact.

① On October 6, 2014, the Emergency Countermeasure Committee was constituted, and a public hearing was held on or around the instant apartment, and the lower court’s joint Defendant A, the president of the meeting for the representatives of occupants of the instant apartment.