Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

1. 업무 방해 피고인은 2016. 10. 7. 09:40 경 경기도 양주시 C 아파트 관리사무소에 방문하여 관리 사무 소장인 피해자 D가 평소 동대표인 자신의 말을 잘 듣지 않고 시키는 대로 일을 하지 않는다는 이유로 업무 중인 관리사무소 내에서 “ 야~!! 너!! ~ 해 라!!” 등의 고함을 지르고 책상을 주먹으로 ‘ 쾅! 쾅!’ 내리치는 등 위력으로 약 20분 동안 관리사무소 운영업무를 방해하였다.

2. On October 14, 2016, the Defendant damaged the property by removing the “public notice of the meeting of occupants’ representatives” in the name of the occupant representative meeting attached D on 46 places of C apartment bulletin board at the 18:30 on the 14th week of the Gyeonggi-si, the Seoul apartment bulletin board, on October 14, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, and F;

1. Part of each police statement made with respect to G and H in the police record;

1. Documents under each paragraph, the grounds for the delay of business, and records;

1. Public notice of the meeting of occupants, public notice given by the person who has been re-preparation, and extract the rules for managing related apartment;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a place where a public announcement is affixed, damaged CCTV images, and a public announcement notice is posted;

1. Relevant Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 316 of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, and the selection of fines for each crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to interference with business

A. The gist of the assertion is that at the time, the Defendant requested the victim to correct the wrong signature in the confirmation column of the representative meeting minutes of the occupants, and the Defendant merely stated a little voice, and did not have to take a book by drinking, and did not exercise the power to the extent that it interferes with the work.

B. The judgment of this court is legitimate.