The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is as follows: (a) although the Defendants’ exclusive measures cannot be deemed as a legitimate act as an act that is highly reasonable to be permitted in light of social norms, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows.

A. Defendant A is the head of the operating management team of the I Co., Ltd. managing the “H” building, which is an aggregate building in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Defendant

A around November 21, 2014, around 13:30 on November 21, 2014, around 2013:13:30, the victim J demanded suspension of business on the ground that the victim J's health beverage sales store in the 9th floor of the above building violated the type of business under the management regulations, and took measures for the suspension of business for about 2:30 minutes and more.

Accordingly, Defendant A interfered with the victim's health drinking business by force.

B. Defendant B, “2015 High 703,” committed the following crimes in collusion with the representative director of the IF, and Defendant C, as the managing director of the same company, with A, who is the managing team leader of the same company.

(1) In the event that the above Defendants wish to take all measures as a part of the business sanctions in accordance with the bylaws of the management unit, the management unit was subject to the resolution of the representative committee, but the victim J violated the designated type of business, on November 21, 2014, without the resolution of the representative committee, the said Defendants obstructed the victim’s duties by taking the exclusive measures at the “K” business place, which is operated by the victimized party on the nineth floor of the above building sales unit, on the ground that the victim J violated the designated type of business.

(2) On November 21, 2014, the said Defendants once taking a short-term measure as referred to in paragraph (1), provided that the victim does not resume his/her business, and connect all the weeks for the storage of food materials at around 14:50 on the condition that they do not resume his/her business.

However, as the victim resumes the business, it is re-established without the resolution of the representative committee at around 17:00 on December 8, 2014.