The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles are inconsistent with the fact-finding and the defendant's removal of the notice board attached to an elevator, but the management office, etc. was sought to ask about whether the notice board can be attached to the elevator, and there was no intention to obstruct the business and damage property.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the charge of obstructing duties and the crime of destroying property, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant’s act would interfere with the duties of the resident representative meeting, taking full account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the adopted evidence, i.e., the Defendant: (a) there was conflict with the resident representative meeting prior to the instant crime; (b) there was a public announcement in the name of the chairperson of the election management, in addition to the public announcement in the name of the chairperson of the resident representative meeting; (c) the Defendant was removed twice from the public announcement in the name of the chairperson of the resident representative meeting; and (d) at the bottom of the public announcement in which the Defendant was removed, the Defendant could have easily been identified as the public announcement officially attached by the resident representative meeting because the official seal of the chairperson of the resident representative meeting was affixed.

The Court judged that it did not seem.

2) The judgment of this court) In the crime of destroying property, the term “damage” includes not only the case of making an article in a state in which it cannot be used for its original purpose as a material destruction but also the case of making it into a state in which it cannot play a specific role as a temporary owner of the article (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1057, Jul. 13, 1982).