The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended separately.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as examined below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

① Defendants’ act does not constitute an element of the crime of interference with business.

In other words, the management duties of officetels and commercial buildings (hereinafter “C building”) processed by the victim D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) are duties not worth protecting. Thus, this does not constitute the duties under the crime of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, nor did the Defendants have any intent to commit a crime of interference with business.

② Defendant A’s act does not constitute an element of a crime of destroying and damaging property.

In other words, the entrance locking device damaged by the above defendant should be deemed to be co-ownership of the building C, and the above co-owners should be deemed to have legally granted authority to the above defendant about the damage of the existing locking device and replacement to another for the purpose of enabling the above defendant to properly perform the management of the building C, or to have impliedly understood in advance.

③ Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes an element of a crime, illegality shall be avoided.

In other words, at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, D did not have the right to manage the C building, and the Defendants were committed only in this case to receive a return of the right to manage the building from D for the benefit of the entire sectional owners of C building. Therefore, the acts as stated in the judgment of the lower court by the Defendants should be deemed to constitute a justifiable act

B. Even if the Defendants are found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing, the sentencing of the lower court (the fine of KRW 800,000,000,000,000,000: KRW 50,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts 1) The above 1) judgment on the grounds of appeal 1, the victim D (employee F, I, H, etc.) is the C building.