The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a case where a misunderstanding of facts and legal principles requests a public announcement, the notice was posted without the approval of the apartment management office, and the contents of the public announcement are not related to the duties of the president of the resident representative meeting. Thus, the Defendant’s act of removing the public announcement does not constitute an act interfering with the duties of the resident representative meeting. The public announcement made by the Defendant cannot be deemed as an act interfering with the duties of the resident representative meeting. Moreover, the Defendant’s act does not violate the social rules.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view that the act of the Defendant by removing the notice as stated in the instant facts charged constitutes the act of damage to property and interference with business. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① “Duties” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to business or affairs engaged in an occupation or continuous operation, which is worth protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. It does not necessarily require a contract or administrative act that forms the basis of such business to be lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3687, Aug. 23, 2007, etc.). Whether the business is legally worthy of protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually peaceful and constitutes a basis for social activities, and there is a substantial or procedural defect in the process of commencing or performing such business.

Even if it does not reach the degree of anti-sociality, it should be viewed that it is subject to protection of interference with business (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382 Decided March 9, 2006).