The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. As stated in the summary of the grounds of appeal, the “C building”, as indicated in the facts charged, was entrusted to M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”) in which the Defendant works for the division of the prosperity, and the “O company” (L) respectively. The Defendant allowed merchants, such as D, E, and F, to pay management fees to the said O company, not M.

The above D, E, F, etc. paid management expenses to an O company that is not M the defendant's work, which does not fall under the default of management expenses prescribed by the above C Building Management Rules, but the fact that the above D, E, and F did not interfere with the above D, E, and F's work.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate acts.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the director of the building management office in Ansan-si.

The defendant selected a new controlled entity, and did not pay management expenses to the controlled entity that entered into a contract by G, the former president, G, and the victim's electrical supply of commercial buildings operated by the victims, thereby causing other merchants to pay management expenses.

Thus, around April 17, 2012, the Defendant instructed H, the chief of the electricity management office of the 6th floor of the above C building, to “on April 18, 2012, at around 08:00, to block the electricity of the commercial buildings operated by D, E, and F, thereby getting the said H to cut off the squad and obstructing D’s operation by blocking the supply of electricity of the K, 41, 49, 55, 59 operated by E, and 309 I, 310, 310, 310, 310, 310, 310, 310, 55, and 59.

B. The lower court’s determination is based on the evidence as indicated in its judgment.