The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: (a) on June 17, 2012, the Defendant: (b) 02:10 from around 17, 2012 to 02:40 on the same day, the Defendant: (c) saw that, under the influence of alcohol in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, the drinking water repair works were set off on the road in front of Seocho-gu Seoul, to (d) E and three other persons belonging to (e.g., who are performing water supply construction works under the influence of alcohol; (b) saw that, on the ground that the Defendant was able to prevent the passage of the driver, and how to stop the passage of the driver; and (c) expressed the disturbance on the roadway by force, thereby interfering with the water supply works of E by force.

B. As to the facts charged of this case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the ground that the aforementioned facts charged are sufficiently recognized according to the evidence duly examined and adopted.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, around June 17, 2012, traveling around the above construction site for returning home on or around 02:10, while passing through the above construction site, not intentionally exercising power that interferes with water supply works; and (b) such failure does not constitute force in the crime of interference with business; and (c) the Defendant’s act alone does not constitute a crime of interference with business, and thus does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

3. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, E was engaged in the duty of assisting two persons, where E sold the land at the waterworks construction site around 02:10 on June 17, 2012 and cut off the ground and exposed to the elderly, and the defendant demanded that the signal number at the construction site should be returned from the delivery of the above construction site during the time of drinking. Accordingly, the defendant was able to take a bath about the above construction site and walk on the roadway, and E, which the defendant, who entered the roadway, thought to be a full inflow, was moving out of the roadway to prevent the occurrence of traffic accidents.