A. When committing the instant crime by mistake of fact, the victim did not actually proceed with the construction at the time of the instant crime, and the victim’s duties are not protected in the crime of interference with the business.

In addition, the defendant is a legitimate act since he installed a blocking system as the owner of the land of this case as the interest manager.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine around February 15, 2016 on the charge of interfering with the business due to the fact that he installed a container (Seoul District Court Branch Branch Decision 2015No. 296, Nov. 25, 2016) and the said judgment became final and conclusive around November 25, 2016. The facts constituting the crime in the above final and conclusive judgment and the facts charged in the instant case are the same as the facts charged, and thus, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding legal principles (1) where multiple acts falling under the name of the same crime or continuous acts are conducted for a certain period under the single and continuous criminal intent, and where the legal interests and interests of the same person are identical, each of these acts shall be punished by a single comprehensive crime. However, where the uniformity, continuity of the criminal intent is not recognized or the method and place of the crime are not the same, each crime constitutes a substantive concurrent crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005). A single and continuous criminal intent constitutes a single and continuous crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4051, Sept. 30, 2005). Whether a subsequent crime has been committed in the course of continuing the use of the same opportunity or relationship between each of the crimes, i.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances recognized by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court should be reasonably determined based on logical and empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do11318, Oct. 27, 2016). (2) Examining the following circumstances in light of the legal doctrine as seen earlier.