Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles decided on the budget bill on the Jeju Naval Base in 2013, the National Assembly specified the incidental conditions of three paragraphs and reported the results thereof within 70 days, and subsequently executed the budget. The purpose of this is that construction work on the Jeju Naval Base should be suspended for 70 days. The naval Headquarters did not discontinue construction work, and the construction work was enforced under the state of damage to the prevention of misunderstanding.

In addition, the vehicular line is set up on the roadway connected to the road in front of the designated branch of the Jeju Naval Base Authority (hereinafter referred to as the "project team") and the median line is prohibited from left-hand turn because it is set up by plastic sealing. The front of the project team is the original river site in front of the project team, and the branch office of the Navy installs an access road after changing the form and quality of the vehicle without obtaining permission from the river management agency. Thus, the operation of the construction vehicle that intrudes the central line and passes through illegal left-hand and illegal access roads cannot be deemed as violating the Road Traffic Act, the River Act, etc., and the River Act,

As above, the Defendant was bound by the project team to urge the suspension, etc. of illegal Jeju Naval Base Construction Work, and thus, there was an intention to interfere with the business.

The crime of interference with business or the crime of interference with business cannot be deemed to have been exercised.

Furthermore, since the other party whose duties are obstructed by the defendant's act is only a driver of ready-mixed vehicles, this cannot be applied to the interference with business with the business of the F, Large Forest Industry Co., Ltd. or the subcontractor, which is the trial contractor, and at the time, the construction vehicle was allowed to enter through other entrance, so it cannot be deemed that there was a danger of interference with business, and the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended sentence for six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased.