All appeals by the Defendants and by the Prosecutor against Defendant A are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (A) and (2) of [2] [2] [2] [2] [2] [3. or around March 2012 (2012, the Defendants’ interference with business] as indicated in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “L”) delegated management authority to L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”) to manage the apartment of this case. Thus, the Defendants believed that they have management authority and changed their passwords while repairing the correction device of the entrance of the defective apartment, and there was no intention to interfere with M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “M”)’s apartment management, and there was justifiable reason to believe that there was no illegality.

(B) 3-B of the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment [2012 Highest 4571]

1. Exclusion of the instant apartment No. 102, 302, the Defendants occupied by the Defendants (in the absence of joint departure)

There is no fact that the Gu was received, and the Defendants were authorized to possess the above 102 302 dong 302 from L, so there is no crime of non-compliance with the eviction.

In addition, the above 102 Dong 302 et al. were occupied by only Defendant A while living together, and the rest of the Defendants did not jointly possess them. Even if the Defendants did not have possession right on the above 102 Dong 302 et al., there is justifiable reason to believe that the Defendants did not have such right.

As such, the crime of non-compliance with eviction is not established.

(2) The judgment of the court below on unreasonable sentencing (the defendant A: 2 years of imprisonment; the defendant B: 3 years of suspended sentence and probation; 200 hours of probation; the defendant C: 10 months of imprisonment; and the defendant F: 1 year of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

B. According to the prosecutor (1) misunderstanding of facts (Defendant A), the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A as to the fraud of Defendant A, on the ground that it is sufficiently recognized that Defendant A conspired AB to allow prior lease of 30 households of apartment house and acquired a total of 1.80 million won from that deception, is not guilty.