A. Defendant (1) did not interfere with the construction work of the Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Electric Power Corporation”).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of business among the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the judgment.

(2) The punishment of a fine of KRW 3 million sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was clearly erroneous in the first instance judgment as to the credibility of the statement made by the first instance trial witness in light of the spirit of substantial direct psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act.

Unless special circumstances exist or comprehensively taking account of the results of the first instance examination and the results of further examination of evidence conducted until the closing of oral proceedings, maintaining the first instance judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court shall respect the judgment on the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4994, Nov. 24, 2006). Meanwhile, “power in obstruction of business affairs” means any force that may lead to pressure or confusion on the free will of a person, and the victim’s free will is not de facto controlled by force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589, Oct. 12, 1995); and the risk of interference with business affairs does not require interference with the establishment of the crime of interference with business affairs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do4984, Oct. 24, 199).