The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant’s obstruction of business opened and fixed the instant entrance so that the Defendant could not lock, the victim C Apartment Management Office could perform apartment management, such as the above outside access control, in addition to the method of selecting outside persons and controlling outside persons’ access through the opening machine or the entrance of the instant opening machine or the entrance, since the management office employee of the management office has been able to carry out apartment management, such as the above outside person’s access control, etc. by staying at the site or continuously monitoring CCTV, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s above act interfered with the said victim’s business. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business

B. The Defendant, in the form of property damage, was completely equipped with the above entrance in order to prevent the door from being opened again, and then opened either part of the above entrance and the above entrance, which was linked to the above entrance, was fastened with the bicycle chain, and then locked with the lock. There was no fact that the entrance was opened in the opening and closing machine of this case, and there was no fact of domestic affairs.

Even if so, it did not lose the utility of the above opening and closing machine itself, and since the defendant set up the entrance of this case and 20 minutes have not yet passed after the defendant set up the entrance of this case, the management office employee restored the entrance to its original state, the crime of property damage is not established against the defendant.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant ex officio, the crime of interference with business in this case and the crime of causing property damage are several crimes, and there are two or more crimes, but the court below aggravated concurrent crimes by deeming them as substantive concurrent crimes. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.