The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The acts committed by the accused against the summary of the grounds for appeal are justifiable in motive and purpose;

Although it is difficult to see the means or methods as reasonable, the lower court acquitted the Defendant by misunderstanding facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The Defendant, as the principal representative director of the instant charges, is a person who, according to a management agreement with the council of occupants’ representatives, conducts the business of collecting management fees, etc. for the instant officetels 1002, the victim F, who is the internal director of the said office under the management agreement with the council of occupants’ representatives.

On November 23, 2015, from around 10:00 to 14:00 on the same day, the Defendant cut off the electricity connected to the above officetels 1002 by means of cutting off the subdivision box installed on each floor, on the ground that the said victim did not pay management expenses in the Dtel in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from around 10:0 to around 14:00 on the same day, and obstructed the victim’s business operation by force.

3. As to the above facts charged in the judgment of the court below, the court below acquitted the above facts charged for the following reasons.

In this case, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor and the defense counsel, there is a legal dispute over the management authority between the defendant and the council of occupants' representatives of the above officetels, but the defendant seems to have the right to manage the above officetel in accordance with the above officetel management regulations and the management agency contract. According to Article 23 subparagraph 2 of the above Officetel management regulations and Article 23 of the above Officetel management agency contract, the management authority may take measures against the households in arrears with management expenses, etc., and the victim has unpaid management expenses equivalent to 2,793,780 won for 20 months around the time of the instant case. The fact that the defendant notified that he may take measures to cut down the office in accordance with the management rules if he did not pay management expenses, etc. over several times before taking the exclusive measures, and that the victim's damage caused by the exclusive measures is relatively insignificant.