However, the lower court rendered a judgment of conviction against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and examined at the lower court’s judgment, the fact that the Defendant interfered with the business affairs of the victim company by not opening the pents door around June 2015 can be sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below is justified.

① On December 2, 2014, the Defendant was delegated to F with the civil and criminal authority for the construction of apartment buildings in Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, where approximately 80-90% process was carried out by F, and entered into a contract for construction with F, the victim company’s actual operator D, the construction owner of the said construction, to complete the said construction and to receive reimbursement for part of the newly constructed apartment.

However, on December 19, 2014, the Defendant installed a pents door at the construction site of this case and did not proceed with construction until June 2015.

② At the investigative agency around October 2014, K recommended the Defendant to delegate the right of retention to him/her, as the Defendant had exercised the right of retention at the construction site of this case and received the construction cost.

A. Around May 2015, Ldo investigative agency made a statement (217 pages). Although Ldo investigative agency demanded a subcontractor to resume several times, the Defendant did not undertake the construction at all, the Defendant deemed that the subcontractor possessed the construction site without any material from the beginning, and that the Defendant was deemed to have no idea to proceed with the construction from the beginning (the investigation record 280 pages). The F attempted to enter the construction site of this case at around the instant site, but the Defendant delegated the authority related to the instant construction to himself.