2. Determination

A. In establishing the crime of interference with business as to whether interference with business by force is established, it is not required that the result of interference with business actually occurs, but it is sufficient that the risk of interference with business arises, but if there is no risk of interference with business, this crime is not established.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the Health Team, the lower court and the lower court, which were back to the instant case, there was a risk that the Defendant’s parking of the instant automobiles owned by himself may interfere with the passage of heavy equipment and soil and sand transport trucks necessary for construction, and such a consequence may arise for the same reason. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1) A dump truck driver, who was at the site, testified at the court below that it was impossible to pass a truck, etc. on the side of the instant vehicle parked by the defendant due to lack of space (the trial record 225-227 pages), and made a statement to the police for a similar purpose (Evidence 1:5-16 page), and the J, who was working at the site of the head of the victim company, stated that I would be able to pass through the police, not to the extent that it is impossible, but to pass through several times, and that the J, who was working at the site of the head of the victim company, made a statement to the same purpose as that of the police (Evidence 1:15-16 page page 2). However, the J testified testified that it is possible to pass through several times at the court below, but it is difficult to do so.