A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding the legal principles, had already been running a hotel construction before the hotel entrance was obstructed, and G leased part of a hotel to gain profits, and the Defendant’s side did not knowingly resist or refrain from doing so.

In other words, G was legally taking possession of and benefit from a hotel under the understanding of the defendant's side and was actually engaged in G's business and lease business in the hotel regardless of whether the ownership of the hotel belongs to G, and therefore, it constitutes a crime of interference with the business of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that there was no proof of crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on this part of the facts charged: (a) The Defendant interfered with G hotel work and rental work by force, such as setting up dump trucks at the entrance of the above hotel and preventing people from having access to the building, despite the fact that the Defendant does not have the right to own ownership or direct possession of the above hotel at the E hotel located in Busan-gu D from July 22, 2014 to August 5, 2014.

2) The lower court’s determination is insufficient to acknowledge that G acquired the ownership of a hotel in order to be convicted of this part of the facts charged, and there is no reasonable doubt as to whether G acquired the ownership of the hotel due to a physical repayment or sale, etc., and that F or the Defendant, the debtor, who acquired the ownership of the hotel by means of a real payment or sale, did not have the ownership or possession of the right to the hotel, and it may be otherwise recognized.