All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants were not able to force the victim’s free will and thereby interfere with the work.

Defendants do not have any act written in the facts charged. With regard to paragraph 1 of the facts charged, Defendant A does not have any act written in the facts charged, and Defendant B and C does not have any sound or friendly character that Defendant B and C would not turn the place of the complaint to H, or that Defendant B and C would not have “I would have no need for the complaint” to the victim, and in relation to paragraph 2 of the facts charged, Defendant B and C had “I would have our complaint and display any document.”

There is no sound-friendly fact that Defendant A "I do not need to do so," while "I do not have any other sound-friendly fact."

Since the victim was not in the position of managing apartment at the time of the case, it cannot be deemed that the defendants interfere with the management of apartment by the victim.

The Defendants’ actions should be regarded as legitimate acts that do not violate social norms.

B. The punishment of the lower court (Defendant A: fine of KRW 700,00,000, Defendant B, and C: each fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below as to whether the Defendants interfere with the business as stated in the facts charged, the Defendants may fully recognize the fact that the Defendants interfered with the victim’s business as stated in the lower judgment. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

① At the investigative agency and the lower court, the Defendants have the Director of the Management Office around July 18, 2017.

We can now see our complaint.

Whether Defendant B and C reported the accounting data on July 19, 2017.

In the management office of the “victims along with three persons,” the materials were cut off while speaking, and the Defendants got her high sounds at the management office of the “victim.”