A. On September 9, 2015, around 08:00, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s new housing construction work for eight hours from around the same day to around 16:00 of the same day by holding a fright to the floor from the access road to the new site of new construction of multi-household E victim E in Daejeon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. On September 15, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s new housing construction work from around 11:00 to around 17:00 by the same method as that of the preceding paragraph for six hours.

2. On September 9, 2015 and September 15, 2015, whether the Defendant’s act of standing up on the floor of the access road to the new site of a multi-household house at F’s new construction site constitutes “power” that interferes with business affairs to prevent the entry of construction vehicles.

“Authority” refers to any force that may cause confusion with a free will of a person, and is neither tangible nor intangible nor intangible, and includes intimidation as well as social, economic, political status, and pressure by force. In reality, it does not require pressure of the victim’s free will. However, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether the Defendant constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, form of force, type of duty, status of the victim, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430 Decided November 28, 2013). According to the evidence of submission of police statements to F and on-site photographs, etc., the fact that the Defendant was unable to enter the road of a single-household house at the F construction site.