All the judgment below is reversed.

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

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On December 9, 2014, the misunderstanding of facts D Management Body held a management body meeting to dismiss H from the manager and appointed Defendant B as a new manager.

On September 2, 2016, the Seoul Eastern District Court rendered a judgment that “H, etc. shall not engage in the management of the D building or interfere with the management of the D management body, and deliver facilities related to the management work, such as conference rooms, disaster prevention rooms, and mechanical rooms, to the D management body,” (Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015Gahap975, hereinafter “instant judgment”) and that provisional execution is declared, the legitimate manager of the D building from that time should be deemed Defendant B.

Defendant

B, C did not have an intention to obstruct another person's business and is the subject of the business.

The meeting room of the fourth floor management body was not a space necessary for management affairs, and if an occupant is, anyone can use it. Since the possession on the part of H cannot be recognized, the crime of intrusion upon residence cannot be established.

It did not interfere with business by placing goods at the meeting room of the fourth floor management body, and did not interfere with the access of the employees of the existing management office.

Defendant

C and A have increased utility by rhymizing the locking system of the metal entrance of the Gu management office with his/her seal, and did not impair the lower part of the locking system.

Defendant

A only damages the reinforced glass of the meeting room of the fourth floor management body by hand, but not intentionally.

The CCTV images, which are the evidence of this case, are fabricated and adopted as evidence is in violation of the rules of evidence.

The manager of the 7th underground floor mechanical room was Q and Defendant C entered the 7th underground floor to hold an interview at the request of Q.

The work of H merely has not been hindered.

H There is no duty that prevents H from having access to the 7th underground floor mechanical room because it was not related to the work of the 7th underground floor mechanical room and could not have access to the original place.

(b).