Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. Defendant A and B, from August 17, 2013, were employed respectively as the Director of the Management Office and the Director of the Accounting Office and the Director of the Accounting Office of Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, and were dismissed as of August 11, 2014 by the Chairperson of the Residents' Representative Meeting newly commissioned on July 4, 2014.

From around 08:00 on September 1, 2014 to 10:05 on the same day, Defendants with interference with business were dismissed by the president of the council of occupants' representatives newly elected at the Guro-gu D apartment disaster prevention room in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, by preventing from entering and departing from a disaster prevention room, such as a fry, a disaster prevention room door, a small wave, etc., thereby hindering the victim F (52 years of age)'s apartment management who was appointed by the head of the management office by force.

B. Defendants in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint expulsion) were demanded from the victims F and the representatives of apartment occupants to bring out the door of the disaster prevention room and enter the disaster prevention room at the time and place of paragraph (1).

However, the Defendants did not comply with the request, and the Defendants were sent to the police officer on the same day at around 10:05 on the same day until they are arrested as an offender in the act of committing a crime, leaving the door of the disaster prevention room, and have come to the door of the victim without any justifiable reason.

The Gu refused to comply with the Gu.

2. The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendants were actually engaged in apartment management business in a peaceful manner until the day of the instant case, and thus, the apartment management business of F of the newly appointed apartment management office did not yet reach the scope of the crime of interference with business. The Defendants and the management staff are the residents of the disaster prevention office of the instant case, and they do not constitute the resident having the right to demand the eviction from the F and the occupants’ representatives.

3. Determination

A. According to the records of recognition, the following facts are recognized:

(1) The apartment of this case had undergone a disturbance in the process of forming the council of occupants' representatives, and newly elected by the president of the council of occupants' representatives on July 2014.