1. Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000;

2. Where the defendant does not pay the above fine.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the chairperson of the Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Steering Committee for the tenant representative of the apartment house, and the victim D is a corporation that concludes an operation and management contract with the representative meeting of the above apartment tenant and operates the sports center on the sports facilities on the first and second floors of the above apartment

On June 2015, the victim requested the apartment complex to clarify the basis for the calculation of the management expenses on the ground that the management expenses imposed on the above sports facilities are excessive, and refused to pay the management expenses. On March 2016, the victim agreed to pay the management expenses other than the common management expenses, which the representative council of the above occupants and the court decided to consult with each other, and paid the full amount of the management expenses imposed on April 2016 and May.

However, on August 2, 2016, the Defendant appears to have mistakenly understood that the Defendant stated the facts charged in the indictment “ around 00:00 on August 1, 2016,” as stated in the indictment on the ground that the victim did not pay the remaining management expenses, including “ around 24:00 on August 1, 2016,” as stated in the additional complaint (in the investigation record No. 225, August 1, 2016).

By arbitrarily blocking the electricity and water supply to the above sports center, it interfered with the operation of the sports center of the victim by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. The defendant denied the charges by asserting that he/she himself/herself did not directly take or instruct any other person to take a short-term or short-term measure, but the defendant, at the time of investigation by the prosecution, stated that "the defendant sent a letter to the effect that he/she would postpone a short-term or short-term measure on July 30, 2016 and knew the complainant on the ground that he/she did not take a short-term or short-term measure on August 1, 2016, and stated that "the defendant was his/her strategic decision for receiving a short-term or short-term measure on August 1, 2016, and that he/she was the defendant's strategic decision for receiving a higher percentage of management expenses."