All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) 26 March 2012, 2012: (a) was found to install a hacks at the entrance of G road at the Y in Busan City; (b) was possible to pass a small-sized vehicle next thereto; and (c) at the time hacks did not intend to enter the land owned by the victim H, and thus, the Defendant did not interfere with H landscaping and land development.

B) At the time, the Defendant, as the husband of AA, managed the instant road as the owner of the said road, but was affected by the act of H, such as the collapse of a part of the road, etc., and thus, he constructed a chain. This cannot be deemed to have exercised the power that constitutes the crime of interference with business, since it is deemed to exercise the Defendant’s legitimate authority, it cannot be deemed to have exercised the power that constitutes the crime of interference with business. (2) In combination with the said G road, M., F. (hereinafter “instant road”).

(B) The Defendant’s wife and the land managed by the Defendant was suffering from rainwater and soil erosion and damage, and thus, the Defendant’s work to let soil and sand flow into a river by hedging part of the instant road and rainwater flow into a river constitutes a justifiable act.

B. Prosecutor 1) On April 2012, where the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the charge of obstruction of business on or around 2012, the lower court rejected the admissibility of U’s statement on the ground that it was a full professional statement and rendered a judgment of not guilty on the ground that it was possible to examine Macles articles as a witness. However, the lower court rejected the admissibility of U’s statement and rendered a judgment of not guilty. In so doing, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts. 2) The sentence (fine 300,000 won) sentenced by

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.