The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles as to interference with business affairs 1) The Defendant did not mislead the Defendant to find the Defendant as identical to the facts charged in the instant case, or let him drink on his book.

2) The Defendant’s act cannot be evaluated as a force.

B. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of the legal principle as to the damage 1) The Defendant did not directly remove the notice as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, and there is no fact that G and H instructed it.

2) Since the owner or manager of the instant public announcement is the Defendant, he/she cannot be the subject of the crime of damage.

3) Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes damage, it constitutes a justifiable act as “act that does not contravene social norms.”

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principles on the obstruction of business affairs

가. 이 부분 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2016. 10. 7. 09:40 경 경기도 양주시 C 아파트 관리사무소에 방문하여 관리 사무 소장인 피해자 D가 평소 동대표인 자신의 말을 잘 듣지 않고 시키는 대로 일을 하지 않는다는 이유로 업무 중인 관리사무소 내에서 “ 야~!! 너!! ~ 해 라!!” 등의 고함을 지르고 책상을 주먹으로 ‘ 쾅! 쾅!’ 내리치는 등 위력으로 약 20분 동안 관리사무소 운영업무를 방해하였다.

B. Determination 1) Evidence that the Defendant left the book is only the legal statement of E in the lower court.

However, E's testimony means that "if there are many defendants frequently and frequently, it is possible to lower the book."

“In the purport of “,” it is unclear whether or not the Defendant correctly memorys his book on the date and time indicated in the facts charged of this case, and whether or not there is a high credibility.

On the other hand, D in the court below, "I am aware of it by drinking, and in writing, I am a book.