업무방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to evidence, such as the statement of the victim and witness, and CCTV images, the defendant’s act constitutes the crime of interference with business, since the defendant’s act constitutes a crime of interference with business, since it is dangerous to interfere with the business of the victim’s restaurant.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On February 14, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 23:20 on February 14, 2018, obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force for approximately five minutes by stating that the victim’s “scopia and sick years” was a large amount of the victim, while other customers listen to the Dcafeteria operated by the victim C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
B. The lower court determined that: (a) the victim and witness E made a statement about the Defendant’s business obstruction at an investigative agency; (b) the considerable part of the part pertaining to the Defendant’s business obstruction prior to the time indicated in the facts charged in the instant case; and (c) the remainder of the part excluding the bathing theory is not indicated as force; (b) the CCTV images submitted by the prosecutor as evidence were two minutes from February 14, 2018 to February 23:23:34 of the same day; (c) according to the above CCTV images, the Defendant could only check the Defendant’s door at the same place between the restaurant operator and the entrance from February 23:23, 2018 to the 23:23th day of the arrival at the police station; and (d) it could not be discovered that the Defendant continued to speak in the same way as the instant restaurant and the entrance; and (e) it could not be found that the number of customers had been a food package.