The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the interference with the business in the holding, the victim D and the victim E, the chairperson of the representative meeting of the occupants' representatives, were not subject to transparent audit on the business affairs of the occupants' representative meeting, and did not intentionally conceal the request for management expenses.

B. A tree is displayed on the crime of damage to property as indicated in the judgment, and a bamboo is used and thus, the act of batteries was conducted at the landscape management vehicle level, not at the event of trees with the intent to damage property.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court can sufficiently recognize that “the Defendant committed each criminal act in its judgment.”

1) As to the crime of interference with business, the criminal intent of interference with business is not necessarily deemed to have the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing interference with business of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive, but also it is so-called willful negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009). The defendant himself stated in the investigative agency that "the defendant was aware of the fact that the collection of the request for management expenses would interfere with the business of receiving management expenses," and that "the defendant was aware of the fact that the collection of the request for management expenses would interfere with the business of receiving management expenses."

B) While the Defendant stated that “the victims recovered the request for management expenses for the purpose of making them transparent audit of the work of the occupant representative meeting,” the Defendant’s act is not justified or unlawful.

2) D Concerning the crime of destroying property, D is in the investigative agency and the court’s ruling at the time.