2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant invested 50% of the capital to the veterinarian of C Hospital and the victim D, respectively, to the president of C Hospital, and the veterinary hospital was opened as a partnership business.

On October 26, 2012, around 11:30 on October 26, 2012, the Defendant, by force, obstructed the victim’s animal care service by force for about 15 minutes, namely, opening a back door of a medical clinic in which the victim reported medical treatment and making it impossible to temporarily return the investment money, on the grounds that the contract was terminated with mutual opinion and the contract was not returned at once.

B. According to the evidence of the judgment of the court below, it may be acknowledged that the defendant, at the above time and place, told the victim as above at a somewhat large level due to disputes arising in relation to the settlement, etc. of the relationship between the victim and the victim. However, in light of various circumstances such as the relationship between the defendant and the victim, the circumstances leading to the defendant's above act, the number of customers in the hospital at the time and location, etc., the above facts alone are insufficient to readily conclude that the above act of the defendant constitutes a threat of the victim's free will and there is no clear evidence to

C. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's decision and the court below's decision, it is recognized that the defendant tolded as above at a somewhat large interest due to a dispute between the victim and the victim in relation to the settlement of the business relationship, etc. at the above time and place, and that there was a minor physical fighting between the victim who the defendant and the victim who intends to report 112.

(b).