beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,500,000 and by a fine of KRW 1,00,000.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although Defendant C’s assertion of mistake as to the facts in the instant facts charged brought about one copy of the voting paper from Defendant C, as stated in the instant facts charged, it constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense by merely neglecting the F apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to transfer the voting paper to K, which is the 113 Dong representative representative of the F apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant C guilty of interference with the business of Defendant C among the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Each sentence (Defendant A: fine of KRW 3 million; fine of KRW 2 million for Defendant B; and fine of KRW 700,000 for Defendant C) that the court below sentenced the Defendants to the unjust argument of sentencing is unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, we examine the Defendants as to Article 1 of the facts charged in this case.
A. On January 19, 2016, the Defendants of this part of the facts charged interfere with the progress of meetings and voting, such as: (a) around 19:00 on January 19, 2016, at the second floor of the apartment management office of this case, the victims G were the chairperson of the apartment management office to discuss the cases concerning the termination of the contract of H with the chief of the management office; (b) enter a bearer voting to ask for the opposition to the contract renewal of the management office; and (c) Defendant A had been a person who has been a meeting of both parties to keep the table of the meeting, and attempted to seize the ballot box; (d) threatening the president’s seat and drinking, and threatening him to keep the chair at a large interest, and interfere with the progress of meetings and voting; and (d) Defendant B returned to the meeting meeting with Defendant A and sealed the meeting; and (d) may not interfere with the voting affairs of the resident and the voting affairs of Defendant C by forming a more threat to share the matters to be carried out.