Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the resident of Seongbuk-gu Seoul apartment, and the victim D (the age of 63) is the head of the management office of the above apartment.

Before the victim is appointed as the director of the management office, the defendant was dissatisfied with the public tender related to the selection of the apartment elevator management company at the representative meeting.

1. On July 24, 2014, the Defendant found the above apartment management office around 14:00, thereby obstructing the victim’s apartment management management by force for about one hour, on the ground that the Defendant volumeed “whether the Gu office’s corrective order has been complied with, whether the president would be in compliance with the order of correction, whether the president would be in accordance with the order of correction, and would give disadvantages when selecting the apartment management company,” thereby preventing the victim from sustaining disturbance, such as avoiding disturbance, etc., and thereby obstructing the victim’s apartment management by force.

2. On September 24, 2014, the Defendant, at around 15:00, obstructed the victim’s apartment management by force for a period of about one hour, by stating that “I will not comply with the corrective order of the Gu office, or if the former president or the Dong representative will not take money, and thus will not take money,” thereby obstructing the victim’s apartment management by force.

3. On October 1, 2014, the Defendant, at around 16:00 on October 1, 2014, instructed the victim to “whether he/she would not comply with the corrective order of the Gu office, whether he/she would change the company, and whether he/she would not drink money,” and obstructed the victim’s apartment management by force for about one hour, by preventing the victim from performing his/her duties, such as avoiding disturbance.

4. On October 21, 2014, the Defendant, at the above management office around 14:00, sounded that “I think I think I think I think I would have suffered from the front warden,” and that I would not see that I would like to say, “I would see I would have to withdraw what I would have received a complaint from the front warden, and would not comply with it. I would like to say that I would not see the victim’s duties.”