The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the victim E of all the charges of this case, even though the defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant took a bath to the victim E and interfere with the business of the victim C (hereinafter “C”) by force, and the court below acquitted the victim C of all the charges of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts

2. Determination

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is 1) The Defendant is SK Br Bab World Articles C’s Internet opening articles, a customer center.

On September 12, 2015, around 09:07, the Defendant: (a) transferred customer information on a mobile phone for business to A4 paper in the C office located in Ma at Yacheon-si; (b) on September 12, 2015, the head of the Technology Team team, at his own workplace, the victim E of the private person in his workplace, “I am I k k k k k k k k k., but

In this regard, there is a place where the case F, G, H, I, etc., an employee of the same office, is located, such as the case F, G, H, and I, “h. C. C. C. C., a fake “publicly insulting the victim”.

2) On March 26, 2015, the Defendant interfering with the business is C’s Internet opening engineer, and the Defendant is present at D2-story C office at the 2nd office at the 2nd office at the Seocheon-si, 2015, and on the ground that the damaged Party C does not reduce the working area and does not properly reduce the work area, I see “I see” to E who is the general team leader;

Corresses,

After having expressed the desire to "Sicker", the victim interfered with the victim's business by force by avoiding disturbance for about 10 minutes, such as putting the office wave into a string, and putting the manager and the head of G with the desire to “the year in which she is a pastor.”

B. The lower court’s judgment 1) According to the records of the instant case (in particular, the result of the commission of appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation Institute), it cannot be confirmed that the Defendant expressed a bath to E even if the recorded contents were to be increased at the time of the instant case, and even if so, the Defendant made a statement like the facts charged in this part.