Among them, the part which excludes the portion of innocence as to the obstruction of the victim J's business.

A. There was a dispute as to the legitimacy of the resolution of the board of directors convened by G’s director status, G’s participation, or convened, since the duties subject to protection in the crime of interference with the prosecutor’s (misunderstanding of facts as to the portion of the crime and misunderstanding of legal principles) are not always

Even if the defendant interfered with the defendant's act of obstructing the business of the head of the facility of the C Welfare Foundation (the name of the D Welfare Foundation after the change; hereinafter "the Foundation of this case") or the victims issued by proxy of the head of the facility, constitutes a crime of interference with the business.

B. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor

A. In full view of the following circumstances found by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant had an intention to obstruct the business of the victim J. In full view of the determination as to the interference with the business of the victim J.

The lower court’s determination that the recognition is insufficient is justifiable.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

1) On March 12, 2016, G convened a temporary directors meeting of the foregoing Foundation as the representative director of the instant Foundation, and the said board of directors resolved to dismiss the Defendant, who is the head of the facility E, as the person on March 15, 2016. The Defendant received a notice of dismissal from G on March 15, 2016.

Of the facts charged as to the obstruction of the instant business, the part against the victim J, among the charges of the obstruction of the business, occurred only after the Defendant was notified of the above dismissal, and the Defendant did not have been notified of the fact that the J was issued as an agent for the head of the facility, or of its procedure, grounds, etc.

2) G is a representative director of the instant foundation, on March 15, 2016, the position of J as an agent for the head of the E facility as of March 15, 2016, through a document stating “an issuance of a corporate death”.