Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A( 여 ,49 세) 은 F 아파트 전 동대표 회장, 피고인 W( 남 ,52 세) 는 전 ㈜X 직원, Y( 남 ,48 세) 은 ㈜Z 직원, 피해자 V( 남 ,57 세) 은 F 아파트 관리 소장이다.

In collusion, Defendants and Y, in order to replace YY in the management office located in the Ulsan-gu F apartment between Ulsan-gu and 16:00 on December 21, 2016, in order to replace YY with the apartment management office, the Defendants interfered with the management office duties of the victims by force by preventing not only two and one original table table on the books in the office of the Defendants from entering the office of the management office, but also by preventing the employees from deducting apartment-related documents from being deducted from the office of the management office, and by preventing the employees from entering the management office of the victims by force, such as not turning into the office of the management office of the management office of the victims and not turning into Y.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each statement made by the witness V, T and AA in the third public trial protocol;

1. Statement made by a witness AB in the fourth public trial protocol;

1. Statement made to AC by the police;

1. Permission to construct the office building and public question in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan Metropolitan City (Notice of the measures to re-elect housing management business entities);

1. Three on-site photographs [the Defendants and the defense counsel selected as a F apartment management entity on December 15, 2016, and the victim was dismissed, the victim's management complaint was unlawful to the effect that the victim's performance of duties was not worthy of protection under the Criminal Act, and that the Defendants' actions did not constitute a degree of interference with the obstruction of business due to defense.

이 법원에서 적법하게 조사하여 채택한 증거들에 의하면, ㈜Z 이 2016. 12. 15. 이 사건 아파트 관리업체로 선정되었으나 관할 구청인 울산 남구 청은 2017. 1. 6. 위 선정 과정의 절차상 중대한 하자로 입찰 무효에 해당하므로 관리업체를 재선정 하도 록 시정명령을 한 사실을 인정할 수 있는 바, 이에 비추어 보면 이 사건 아파트 기존 관리업체인 ㈜X 소속의 관리 소장인 피해자가 그 업무를 수행한 것이 위법 하다고...