A. On November 2012, the Defendants: (a) attempted to interfere with construction by reporting the geological survey and access road construction work for the establishment of a convalescent hospital on H land, the actual owner of H land adjacent to the Daejeon Seo-gu E (hereinafter “E”) and the G land owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “G land”); and (b) G land owned by the FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H land”); and (c) around November 201, 201, the Defendants: (a) attempted to engage in geological survey and access road construction work on H land.

From March 6, 2013 to September 25, 2013, the Defendants saved a wall without conducting a boundary survey between EG land and H land, which is an access road for construction of a convalescent hospital, and thereby making it difficult for the Defendants to pass on the part of H land by piling up a fence on the H land beyond the boundary line of the land, thereby hindering the victim’s work, including the access road construction for the construction of a convalescent hospital by force.

B. As seen in this part of the facts charged, there are many inconsistent parts of the J’s investigative agency and legal statement that seem to correspond to this part of the facts charged, and there are considerable points that are inferred or legal opinions in view of the following circumstances according to the record, and the rest of the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

① On November 2012, Defendant A removed a retaining wall installed in the direction of the road in front of land E and installed a retaining wall again after about four meters from the direction of land E.

Considering the fact that the victim attempted to perform a construction project on the H land at that time, and that there is a concern about the leakage of the land, the purpose of the relocation of the retaining wall by the defendant A seems to be legitimate even if the installation of the retaining wall by the defendant A was recognized as a fact that a part of the boundary was invaded (limited to about 20 cm in width) after the fact that the installation of the retaining wall by the defendant A was carried out.

(b) The defendant A cut part of the retaining wall as he pointed out that the victim violated the boundary, and then the head of the victim's site.