The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1), the notice of the re-election of the same representative in this case (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) regarding the crime of interference with business

(2) The Defendant did not have any fact attached to the apartment bulletin board of the instant apartment, and the Defendant did not have ordered the head of the management office to detached the instant public notice. Even if such instruction was given, it is difficult to deem that the victim’s election management was obstructed by force, as the revised public notice of re-issuance was posted on January 28, 2016, and thus, the victim’s election management was not obstructed by force. Moreover, in relation to perjury, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have exercised his/her power to the election commission, which is the victim. 2) As such, the Defendant did not have instructed the instant public notice to be detached, so even if he/she testified that there was no means to remove

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act to determine the assertion of mistake, if there are extenuating circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or if there are exceptional circumstances to deem that maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court is considerably unfair, the appellate court should respect the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of a statement made by a witness of the first instance court, unless the first instance court’s determination and additional evidence examination

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below are as follows.