All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (a interference with business), Defendant 1 sealed the paper of the management office to the effect that Defendant D, the managing body, did not recognize the head of the management office to protect the rights and interests of residents in accordance with the rights and duties of the chairperson of the rental apartment unit. There was no fact that Defendant 1 sealed the head of the management office at the management office.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of interfering with apartment management affairs by force is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of defamation of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts (as to the point of defamation) constitutes a false fact that contravenes objective facts, and thus, found the Defendant guilty of defamation.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The term “power of force” in the crime of interference with the relevant legal principles means any force that may suppress and confuse a person’s free will, either tangible or intangible, or intangible, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required to be restricted. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons and surrounding circumstances, etc., it should be sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will. Thus, whether such power constitutes a crime ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, including the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, and status of the victim (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009; 209Do5732, Sept. 10, 200);