The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal seems to have made an exaggerated testimony in relation to the facts charged because the employees belonging to the Korea Rural Community Corporation had good appraisal against the defendant, and even though it is difficult to deem that the defendant simply filed a civil petition or demanded compensation is subject to the Act on the Punishment of Minor Offenses, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act due to mistake of facts or obstruction of business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, all facts presented by the court below can be acknowledged, and in addition to the facts presented by the court below, Article 3 (2) 3 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that "a person who interferes with another person, organization, or person performing official duties due to an unforeseen accident, etc." shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 200,000 won, by misdemeanor imprisonment, or by a minor fine.

“The provision provides that unlike obstruction of business or obstruction of performance of official duties under the Criminal Act, since the form of the act, unlike obstruction of business under the Criminal Act, is called “influences, etc.,” if the act corresponding to the constituent elements of the act is relatively weak, it can be widely applied if it is recognized that the act interfered with business even if it is relatively somewhat less. ② Also, it cannot be punished as obstruction of business or obstruction of performance of official duties by force as an act of obstruction of business by force. Thus, it seems reasonable to punish the act of obstruction of business at public offices like this case under the above provision, and avoid the gap of punishment. ③ In full view of the fact that the defendant continued to demand unreasonable demand and avoid disturbance, the frequency of other crimes and the attitude of the defendant's act, etc., the defendant is considered to have been punished under the above provision.