beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
Defendant
A does not pay the above fine.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and their defense counsel
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendants) Defendant A: (a) was refused to return the documents submitted by the representative of Gwangjin-si D apartment (hereinafter referred to as “the apartment of this case”) to E in a special election for the same representative; and (b) was somewhat interested in the process of protesting, and did not interfere with his business.
Defendant
B was requested to E to copy data related to the council of occupants' representatives, and it was refused to do so, and there was no conspiracy to interfere with the affairs of the defendant A and the apartment management office of this case.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business.
B. In light of the fact that Defendant A commits an error in the part on the damage of property and restitution of damage, etc., the lower court’s fine of KRW 700,000, which the lower court sentenced to Defendant A, is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. At around 10:40 on March 11, 2014, the Defendants conspired to leave the D Apartment Management Office in a special election for D apartment units, and the Defendant A returned the candidate documents submitted by the representative of D apartment units to E at the D apartment management office in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si, but the documents related to E did not have any documents related to E. However, the Defendants made false statements that they did not have any documents related to E, and interfered with the duties of D apartment management office by force between about 40 minutes and sound.
B. (1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, whether the Defendants interfere with the Defendants’ business by public offering (A) and the evidence duly admitted and examined, Defendant A is a candidate who was submitted to the representative of the instant apartment unit in the special election.