A. The steel pents installed by the Defendant misunderstanding the facts (hereinafter “instant pents”) are installed from November 23, 2015 to November 23, 2015, and only from November 23, 2015 to November 24, 2015, and there was no risk of interference with the work of the victims. Thus, the crime of interference with the work is not established.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of a crime of interference with the determination of facts, it does not require the result of interference with the business, but is adequate if there is a risk of interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002, etc.). The records reveal that ① the instant pents are adjacent to the fence lying on the ground of the road so that it is impossible to open the instant pents; ② the actual victim E farm development work was unable to carry out the instant pents, and ③ K visited the Defendant because it was unable to carry out the work with the instant pents; ③ it was possible for the victims to remove the instant pents with the victim’s permission following the date on which the instant pents were installed, and to newly build the instant pents for a considerable period of time if there was no new danger of interference with the Defendant’s construction of the instant pents in the victim’s land without any negotiations between the victims and the Defendant.

It is reasonable to view it.

The defendant's assertion of facts cannot be accepted.

B. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the judgment of the court below on the unfair argument of sentencing, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, it is desirable to respect it (Supreme Court Decision 23 July 23, 2015).