The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

B, D, and E shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

Defendant

B, D, and E shall each be subject to the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants did not interfere with the part of the obstruction of duties by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and instead, the Defendants did not interfere with the work of the victims, and the Defendants’ act did not constitute a force that constitutes a obstruction of duties, in the process of presenting the Defendants to the employees of the prosperity office, such as J, in a forced manner.

H had entered the business office of the Council immediately after the police was called. Since the police was not in the office at the time of the instant case, the Defendants did not interfere with the H’s management of commercial buildings and the business of the business office of the Council.

The Defendants’ entry into the business office of the instant shopping mall is for requesting cooperation related to the transfer and takeover of the instant shopping mall management business and the settlement of management expenses, and perusal of accounting books, etc. in relation to the settlement of the instant shopping mall management expenses, and is a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms.

2) As to the part of the Defendants’ refusal to leave, the Defendants’ refusal to leave constitutes an unfair demand for withdrawal as a means to refuse the Defendants’ legitimate demand, such as perusal and copying of accounting books. The Defendants’ failure to comply with such demand is a legitimate act that does not contravene the social norms.

B. Sentencing (Defendant E) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles is established as to whether there was a threat of interference with business affairs under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and the crime of interference with business affairs under Article 314(1) is established when a person interferes with business affairs by deceptive means or by force. The term "power" in this context means all the forces that may cause suppression and confusion of a person's free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do8006, Dec. 24, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendants are in the office of the prosperity.