The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (as to the part concerning interference with the business of July 4, 2013), the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the general meeting by reducing the microphones D of the president of the management body, who had held the meeting during the temporary management body meeting of the instant building, as described in this part of the facts charged.

B. In light of the legal principles (as to the facts charged), the defendant thought that he was legally elected as the representative of the management body of the building of this case through the temporary management body meeting held on July 4, 2013, and that he acted as such. As such, the defendant did not have intention to each of the facts charged, or at least there was legitimate mistake, so this part of the facts charged does not constitute a crime.

2. Determination

A. (1) On July 4, 2013, the Defendant: (a) thought that the victim D’s management body, the president of the management body, does not perform normal management work; (b) said, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s general meeting proceeding at the temporary management body meeting held at the meeting of the managing body meeting held at the meeting of the managing body meeting held at the meeting of the third floor of the Gdong office located in the Gdong Office F in the Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si on July 4, 2013; and (c) unilaterally proceed with one hour and thirty minutes of the meeting on the ground of H as the president.

(2) As to the judgment of the lower court, the lower court held a representative meeting on December 12, 2012 and appointed D as the president of the management body; the fact that D, the president of the management body, was convened at the request of the Defendant, etc., who convened an extraordinary management body meeting indicated in its holding; while D, as the president of the management body, was holding the general meeting in the capacity of the president of the representative body, some owners, including the Defendant, were forced to prevent D from holding the meeting in the future, and forced to cut off the micro.