The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of each sentence against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. According to the evidence and circumstances presented by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the victim F's duty is worth protecting under the Criminal Act, and even if the representative of apartment units can be seen as the subject of the request for eviction, the defendants' act as stated in the facts charged does not constitute a crime of interference with duties and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (re

In light of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, including the defendants' statement of confession of the court of appeal, the victim's investigative agency and the court below's statement, each of the above entrusted management agreements, CCTV closure photographs, etc., as stated in the facts charged, the defendant interfere with the victim F's apartment management affairs newly appointed by force as the managing director, and the victim F and the representatives of apartment occupants requested the victim F and apartment occupants to request a change in the disaster prevention room from the disaster prevention room due to force as stated in the facts charged, even though he/she was requested by the victim F and apartment occupants to leave the disaster prevention room without good cause.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on a different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The prosecutor's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is with merit, and it is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

Defendant

A and B, from August 17, 2013, were in office as the director of the management office and the director of the accounting office of the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D apartment, and were dismissed on July 4, 2014 by the chairman E of the tenant representative meeting newly commissioned on July 4, 2014.

1. From September 1, 2014 to around 08:00 on the same day, the Defendants who interfere with their duties are at high time between 10:05 on the same day.