업무방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The defendant's act of misunderstanding the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts) is to install a fireproof and fence on the road site where the emergency entrance is scheduled to be installed after the installation and completion of a set for access to an apartment building construction vehicle, which prevents the redevelopment project of the victim association, but the court below acquitted the defendant, by misunderstanding the fact that it did not obstruct the redevelopment project of the victim association.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a right holder of 20 square meters among 172 square meters of a site located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the said site was provided as a road (hereinafter “instant road”) since the 1970s. The victim D housing association, after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the housing association on July 7, 201, carried out apartment construction from July 2, 2013 after obtaining approval for the housing construction project plan on May 2, 2013. The said approval plan includes the content that an emergency entrance is installed so that emergency vehicles, etc. can enter an apartment by using the instant road.
Around October 21, 2013, the Defendant, in collusion with E, etc., co-owners of the above site, knew that an apartment emergency exit has been installed on the instant road as above, the Defendant installed cement block fences (2m, 60m in length) and fireproof parts at the site of the construction site, and obstructed the redevelopment project of the victim by preventing the passage of the construction vehicle on the part of the emergency entrance.
B. The lower court determined that there was no duty to interfere with the Defendant’s exercise of power at the time of exercising the power, on the ground that the Defendant did not have an emergency exit when exercising the power, and that the vehicles working for redevelopment project did not have passed along the instant road, and thus, there was no duty to interfere with the Defendant’
On the other hand, even based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it cannot be recognized that the defendant's act failed to pass through the construction vehicle, etc. due to the act of the defendant, and the defendant installed the wall and the fence in this case.