The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A, B, and C shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, B, and C shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding the facts as to the Defendants’ obstruction of duties and misapprehension of legal principles, and the limited company I (hereinafter “I”) to which the victim H belongs, did not leave the management office even after the expiration of the contract period with the representative council of occupants of G apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) and continuously committed a tort, such as obstructing the management office’s election management regarding the organization and organization of the representative council of occupants of the apartment of this case. Thus, I’s management of the apartment of this case does not constitute a business with a protected value subject to the protection of the crime of interference with duties.

Even if the Defendants’ crime of this case constitutes a crime of interference with the business, it was derived from the objective of normalization of the apartment of this case, and constitutes a legitimate act as a legitimate act that is reasonable to the extent that it can be permitted under the social norms.

B. Defendant B’s assertion of mistake as to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) by Defendant B was not a member of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee on the instant apartment at the time of committing the crime of destruction among the facts charged in the instant case, and the Defendants did not participate in the non-Subrogation meeting, and the Defendants did not participate in the crime of destruction of the instant apartment at the non-Subrogation meeting.

(c)

Defendant

The key established at the entrance of the apartment management office of this case by misunderstanding the facts about the crime of violation of the Act on Punishment of Violences, etc. (damage, etc. to common property) and misapprehension of the legal principles is not owned by I as management fees paid by the apartment occupants of this case. Thus, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime of damage

Even if the crime of damage is constituted, it is a legitimate act because it was derived from the purpose of normalization of the apartment of this case and is reasonable to the extent that it can be permitted in light of social norms.

(d)..