Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On November 2, 2014, from around 17:00 to November 6, 2014, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s apartment management affairs by force by putting locks at the entrance of the management office in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D apartment management office and correcting them, allowing the victim E of the apartment management complaint to enter the above office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements made against the accused in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect (a statement made to the effect that the entrance door of the D Apartment Management Office was corrected with locks around November 2, 2014).

1. The portion of the witness E's statement in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. Application of the respective legal statements of witness F and G to the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (1) of the Selection of Punishment;

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 defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act was a legitimate act that does not go against the social rules, since the defendant dismissed the damaged person from the office of management before correcting the entrance door of the management office with locks, since the defendant could not be deemed to have any duty of protection, the victim cannot be deemed to have a duty of protection, and thus, the defendant's act was a legitimate act that does not go against the social rules.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion that there was no duty of protection value 1) The Defendant dismissed the victim on November 2, 2014 by a resolution of a majority of the representatives of each floor who are members of the occupant representative meeting.

The argument is asserted.

According to the evidence submitted by the defendant, on November 2, 2014, the defendant attached a public notice to convene an emergency countermeasure meeting on the day to the 4 A.M. and notified the defendant of the fact that the meeting was held by the public notice broadcasting.