The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The head of the management office of misunderstanding facts was already dissolved and appointed by the council of occupants' representatives without legitimate rights. Since the receipt and disbursement of the key of the management office was under the management of the emergency countermeasure committee to which the defendant belongs, so as to bring the key against the will of the emergency countermeasure committee, the duties of the head of the management office D are not worth legal protection.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. “Business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business engaged in an occupation or continuously, which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act, and it does not necessarily require legal protection (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1747, Apr. 11, 2003). The issue of whether a contract or administrative act, etc., which is the basis of the business, is a legal protection shall be determined depending on whether the business is actually peaceful and is the basis of social activities. Even if there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencing or performing the business, so long as the degree does not reach the anti-sociality belt, it shall be deemed that the crime of interference with business is subject to protection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382 Decided March 9, 2006). B.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he interfered with the duties of the head of the management office having legal value of protection of the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

1. The details of the instant dispute are as follows.

Existing C Apartments in which the defendant resides.