A. Defendant 1) In the event that the police interrogation protocol of the defendant as to the obstruction of business was denied the defendant's obstruction of business, the court below erred in finding the admissibility of evidence, even though it cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

On the other hand, since the defendant only participated in a religious event, there is no intention to interfere with business, and thereby cannot be seen as an exercise of force, and even if so, it constitutes a justifiable act.

In addition, the crime of interference with business cannot be established in that the operation of the construction vehicle is a business without a protective value, and there was no concern about the occurrence of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of obstruction of business and erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

B) In order to take a warning of special obstruction of performance of official duties under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, an action to convert the duty of omission to the duty of act as a substitute, was conducted without any such duty imposed. Moreover, the instant order disposition without setting a considerable period of implementation is unlawful, and on the other hand, it does not fall under the case where neglecting the failure to remove the tent in this case, and thus, the instant vicarious execution is an unlawful performance of official duties without meeting the substantive procedural requirements under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. In addition, it is unlawful in that the act of the opposing party, including the defendant, does not constitute multiple power, and it does not constitute violence or intimidation, and it does not constitute a joint principal offender. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the defendant of the charges of special obstruction of performance of official duties, and there is an error of misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding legal principles.