A. As to the obstruction of business, interference with business is not established in light of the following circumstances:

1) At the time of the Defendant’s establishment of the steel gate, the victims’ work did not exist as the period of permission to convert the mountainous district for the creation of the instant site for the electric power resource.

2) No purpose was to interfere with the traffic for the purpose of managing and maintaining the private land for the surrounding residents.

3) Even if the above steel gate was installed, there was no obstacle to people’s passage, and the victims’ request was opened, and there was a right-hand way.

B. As to defamation, the defendant had no intention or intent to defame the victim, and is compatible with the public interest of the residents.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the argument regarding interference with the work of the victims, the Defendant’s allegation by the Defendant is without merit.

① From around October 6, 2014, the victims began the construction of the instant site for electric source, and the mountainous district conversion permission was invalidated on October 6, 2014, and the construction of the site was almost completed (Evidence No. 67 pages, 385 pages), but the victims were also establishing a sales office at the time and conducting the sale of electric source houses (Evidence No. 313 pages). ② At the time of the Defendant’s installation of a building site for electric source, most of the building site was completed, and there was no concern about noise, etc., and there was a risk of imminent damage to the extent that there was no sufficient legal procedure.

Now is (Evidence No. 387 pages). ③ due to the installation of the steel gate, the vehicle has become unable to freely pass on the site of the said electric source house, and it appears that there is a bypass road.