Thus, the defendant was standing in front of the victim's vehicle.

B The vehicle is thought that the vehicle will turn on for the victim, and the vehicle will continue to stop.

The victim did not request the defendant to move the vehicle.

Therefore, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

2. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal.

As to this, the lower court rejected Defendant 1’s allegation by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances in its ruling, thereby finding Defendant 1 guilty.

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misconception of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

A. At the time of the instant case, the victim stated that the Defendant and B had a hornd while sounding the horn at the time of the instant case, and that he had a sound to cut the vehicle (Evidence No. 14 pages). B. At the time of the instant case, the victim was aboard as a passenger of the victim vehicle.

F also, the victim's vehicle was unable to move along the victim's vehicle B and the defendant's vehicle.

was stated (the 8th page of the evidence record). (c)

At the investigation stage, the Defendant stated that “A person who was a guest was stopped in the future of the victim’s vehicle after getting on the victim’s vehicle, and the Defendant also moved the vehicle to the seat of the victim’s vehicle (Evidence No. 20, 21th page). B also at the investigation stage, “A vehicle was in front of the victim’s vehicle at the time of the instant case, and there was no space for the victim’s vehicle.”