Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the chairperson of the council of representatives of apartment occupants, and the victim C (51) is a person who is entrusted with the management affairs of apartment by the above company pursuant to the above entrustment contract between the above apartment and the Sejong Industrial Company.

On June 4, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 09:05, at the apartment management office of Kimhae-si, the consignment contract was terminated between the apartment side and the Sejong-si industry; and (b) accordingly, even if the injured party has no right to manage the apartment of the victim, the Defendant continued to engage in the management office for the victim’s apartment, on the ground that the damaged party “packs a name tag in the victim’s name, such as “pack,” and laid the name tag used by the management office for about 30 minutes, thereby interfering with the management office of the victim’s apartment management office.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to C and D;

1. Recommendations following civil petitions;

1. A contract for the management of the consignment of multi-family housing and a contract for the cleaning service of the expenses of apartments;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a certificate of contents (cases of termination of a contract for the new industry);

1. Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 314 (Selection of Penalty) of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant, as the president of the apartment tenant representative meeting, has notified the entrusted controlled entity of the cancellation of the contract and has still been in dispute with the entrusted controlled entity regarding the validity of the termination of the contract, and has interfered with the affairs of the Director of the Management Office by exercising physical power without following legal procedures, even though the contract has not been transferred to the subsequent controlled entity.

However, the defendant shows the attitude of recognizing and opposing the wrongs in this court.

The degree of interference with business is significant;

It is not to the extent that it can be seen.