The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, even though the crime of interference with business is acknowledged, since the defendant spreads false facts as stated in the facts charged, and there is sufficient possibility that the defendant may interfere with the victim's duty to construct recreational forest.

2. In establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurs, and it is sufficient that the occurrence of the risk of interference with business occurs.

However, if there is no concern about the occurrence of the result, the above crime is not established.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the above gathering is merely a place where the Defendant was able to promote the sale and purchase of the instant recreational forest land, and there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant had an impact on the Defendant’s filing of the above application for the permission, and that the Defendant’s purchase and sale of the instant recreational forest building building permit or the victim’s filing of the said permission had an impact on the Defendant’s filing of the said request, and that the victim was granted permission from the Yangsan market since the date and time, time, time, purpose, and place indicated in the facts charged by the lower court, and the relationship between the Defendant and the victim and the victim, etc., due to the Defendant’s act as stated in the facts charged, the victim’s business was obstructed by the act identical to the Defendant’s statement in the facts charged.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal.