All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) On the part of the Defendant’s interference with the business (the judgment of the court below No. 1), the Defendant did not exercise power by force against D, as stated in this part of the facts charged, at the time when D, a member of the election management of the Northbuk-gu Seoul apartment complex (hereinafter “instant apartment”) prepared for voting within the council of occupants’ representatives to dismiss the Defendant.

B) The time when the Defendant obstructed voting affairs is not clearly specified.

C) The voting for the Defendant’s dismissal of the Chairperson of the Residents’ Representatives is invalid due to procedural and substantial defects. Thus, it does not constitute a business subject to protection of interference with business affairs.

2) As to the point of injury (the judgment of the court below No. 2), the Defendant did not inflict an injury by smuggling.

B. The punishment of the lower court (the first instance court: the fine of one million won, the second instance court: the fine of two million won: the fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant of the modification of indictment, the prosecutor examined the facts charged in the judgment of the court below ex officio, and at the trial of the court below, applied for the modification of the indictment with the contents of the facts charged on the 5th through 6th of the judgment of the court below. Since this court permitted this, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

B. The judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant in consolidated trial filed an appeal against each of the above two appeals cases, and this court decided to hold concurrent hearings. The crimes of the first and second appeals against the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as they are, since they are concurrent crimes under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act.

(c)

However, the conclusion is that there are reasons for reversal of the above authority.