The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles) the Defendant faithfully performed the election management work and granted the right to vote in accordance with the precedent.

Even if there was a little negligence in the performance of duties, the defendant did not interfere with the duties of the election commission by deceptive means, and there was no intention.

Judgment

In the establishment of a crime of interference with business, the result of the interference with business is not required to actually occur, but is sufficient to cause the risk of causing the interference with business. Thus, the intention is not necessarily required to be the purpose of interference with business or the intention of planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with the business of another person due to its own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also definite intention is recognized so-called as willful negligence.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts and circumstances are recognized:

On February 6, 2015, the Defendant, as the chairman of the election management committee of C commercial buildings (hereinafter “ commercial buildings”), was in charge of the management of the election of the chairman of the commercial building.

In the above election, N and K opened, but in total 94 votes, N 47 votes and K 46 votes with the exception of invalid votes, and N was elected as the Operating Chairperson.

However, on September 10, 2015, in a lawsuit to confirm the invalidity of an election filed by K against the Commercial Building Management Steering Committee (No. 2015, the Changwon District Court 717 together), the decision was rendered on September 10, 2015 to confirm that the above election is null and void on the grounds that there is a serious defect in granting an unfair right to vote. In the appellate court, the conciliation was concluded to accept the decision of the election management members appointed by the chairman on behalf of the chairman and the operating members.

According to the commercial building management rules, ① the right in braille is the right in braille, and there is no one who enters the voting.