The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles as follows, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

① The Defendant’s instant short-term measure was taken for the purpose of collecting delinquent management expenses, etc. based on the procedures prescribed by the management regulations and the resolution of the D Building Management Group for the purpose of collecting delinquent management expenses, etc., and constitutes a justifiable act that has considerable reasonableness to the extent permitted under

② Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of interference with the business affairs, the Defendant was in the position of the director of the management office to execute the resolution of the above management division, such a short-term measure was stipulated in the management regulations, and as long as the instant short-term measure was resolved at the meeting comprised of legal experts, such as attorneys-at-law, there was no choice but to believe that the decision was legitimate.

Therefore, there is a justifiable reason that the defendant knew that his act does not constitute a crime, and that there is no such awareness of illegality.

must be viewed.

③ In the facts charged, the victim could not receive an Internet order necessary for restaurant business due to the instant short circuit measure, and the maximum food on which the victim was in a restaurant cooling room is stated. However, the victim did not have installed the Internet in his restaurant. Moreover, the victim’s prior short circuit prior notice was known to the fact that the victim was short circuit, and the Defendant’s prior short circuit notice was supplied to the neighboring store, and the food on which the victim was actually in a cooling room did not have an upper limit.

Therefore, the victim's duty was obstructed by the measure of the short circuit of this case

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Summary of the facts charged of this case