The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. C, the principal offender, has completed a decision of compulsory commencement of auction on the E hospital building located in D at both weeks, and thereafter the possession of the building was commenced after the seizure became effective. Since C’s possession goes against the effect of prohibition of disposition of seizure, C’s possession cannot claim the right of retention.

B. Even if the right of retention is recognized to C, C is only recognized to have transferred possession on its own will without raising any objection to the execution of delivery by enforcement officers, and there was no fact that C has deprived of the possession of the above E hospital building.

(c)

Therefore, since the crime of interference with the business of a criminal C is established, the defendant who is the aiding and abetting offender can be fully convicted of the facts charged in this case.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the facts charged.

2. On May 15, 2014, the Defendant became aware that C interferes with the construction work of the E hospital managed by the victim F by leaving containers alone at the E hospital located in Yangju-si D on May 15, 2014.

From the 22th of the same month to the 14:50 of the same month from the 27th of the same month, the Defendant: (a) on the access road to the front of the above hospital, C, in order for the victim F to assist him in the construction work as above, parked the Hone Star Engine vehicle, G owner, onto the container side; and (b) made it difficult for the victim F, to move the container.

As a result, the Defendant aided and aided C’s conduct of interfering with work.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court’s judgment held that the Defendant was prosecuted as an aiding and abetting, and that in order to be recognized as an aiding and abetting offender, the principal offender’s conduct should be conducted due to the accomplice’s subsidiary nature, and that in this regard, the principal offender’s conduct falls under the elements of the establishment.