The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

(b) Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. From around 2005, the Defendant served as the president of the commercial building numbering association of the instant building B.

However, the victim asserted that he was elected as the representative by the council of occupants' representatives in 2009 and used the management fee arbitrarily and correctly.

The defendant's thought that he did not have the power of representation and should be reduced management expenses, while having raised questions about this, is merely a notice of the documents in this case and thus cannot be viewed as a obstruction of business by fraudulent means, and the defendant did not have any intention to commit a crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The management expenses (rain) know about the assertion of mistake of facts*B building occupants thickness.

*

1. The tenant of the loan of a building B shall pay 30,000 won (per month) monthly management expenses;

2. The merchants of commercial buildings B: 20,000 won per month.

(In any words, he or she shall be asked for a telephone): S (Application for Counseling) * if he or she speaks in the horses of the T President, and he or she shall win the guns, and if he or she speaks.

* In the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, which is the representative of the occupant of the building B, the “B” means that an actor misleads the other party as well as makes him/her use of land to achieve the purpose of the act, and the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the crime of interference with business does not require that the result of interference with business would actually occur and the risk of interference with business arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 2013). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the content of the instant documents, such as the aspect, and the council of occupants’ representatives of the commercial buildings, against the church (the defendant representative) occupying and using No. 202, Sept. 21, 2012.