The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors or misapprehension of the legal principles) (the defendant continued disputes between the victim G and E (hereinafter “G”) regarding the management authority of the D commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building”), but did not undergo a resolution of the Steering Committee required before taking the measures for the suspension of the business, and did not give an appropriate warning of the suspension of the business, and did not take any appropriate measures for the suspension of the business (hereinafter “instant suspension of the business”), and did not take any civil action, which is a legitimate remedy for the collection of the management fees in arrears, the suspension of the business of this case, and was limited to all the stores whose management fees are in arrears, but limited to G office which is the party to the dispute. In light of the fact that the suspension of the business of this case is reasonable to see that the measures of this case excessively infringed the rights of the victims and thus considerably lose validity under the social norms, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the legal principles that recognized the suspension of the business of this case as a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged is the representative of the Seo-gu Daejeon District Court D Service Association.

On February 27, 2013, the Defendant entered the room room: (a) opened the office door in order to block electricity to the office of the victim E with D 2 floor D 201 located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon; and (b) opened the office door to the victim’s office regardless of whether the F is opened with the door, and invaded the victim’s room into the victim’s room.

On February 27, 2013, the Defendant’s obstruction of business from February 27, 2013 to 11:10.

The victim E office located in the place specified in the port, and the defendant registered as a superstore manager and the defendant registered as a superstore operator have not concluded a lawsuit seeking revocation of the registration of a superstore operator against the defendant, and thus the victim's management expenses are under dispute with the authority as a legitimate manager of the D commercial building.