All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

A. The misapprehension of the legal principle’s failure to go through the resolution of the council of occupants’ representatives for the interests of apartment residents and preventing the attendance of the director of the management office who has conducted such an act constitutes a justifiable act.

B. The judgment of the court below against the Defendants on the unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable and unfair.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the records of this case's assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, the head of the management office, the managing body of apartment, may select and execute services for cleaning, security, disinfection, elevator maintenance, etc., through competitive bidding (see Article 55-4 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Act, Article 2 of the Housing Management Operator and the Guidelines for Selection of Business Entities). Thus, the defendant's argument that the victim F, the head of the management office of apartment of this case, must undergo prior resolution by the council of occupants' representatives when conducting an open competitive bidding for the selection of the service company, such as cleaning of apartment, is erroneous; the victim's right or reasonable ground exists to prevent the defendants from attending the council of occupants' representatives; the defendants can not open the council of occupants' representatives, prevent the defendants from entering the office, prevent the victims from entering the office, and prevented the defendants from attending the office by preventing them from entering the office; if the above defendants' act is deemed to be acceptable as acts consistent with the sound sense of the general public or social ethics, it is difficult to view that the defendants' act constitutes a justifiable act of each victim.

Therefore, the defendants' assertion of legal principles is without merit.

B. The Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is a clear statement for the interests of apartment occupants.