We reverse the judgment of the court below.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the judgment of the court below of first instance, the victim F, the chairman of the apartment management committee of this case, violated the provision on the procedure for dismissal of representatives of each building under the apartment management agreement of this case without the consent of the management body, and attached the notification of dismissal voting by the defendant, the representative of B apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) of the same apartment of this case (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”).

The Defendant read the instant unknown text to the occupants and promptly prevented them from misunderstanding the facts against the Defendant. As such, the Defendant inevitably removed the instant unknown text by his own means.

The illegality of the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate acts.

B. On the judgment of the second instance court, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the legal doctrine as to the fact that the Defendant was entitled to attend and speak at a regular meeting of the occupants’ representative meeting (the procedure to dismiss the Defendant as the auditor of the occupants’ representative meeting is invalid by law) and even if there was no right to speak.

Even if the resident is entitled to witness the regular meeting of the resident representative meeting.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

In addition, the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with the business, nor did he use the "power" of interference with the business.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to "power" of a legitimate act or interference with business affairs.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination: