The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On July 4, 2018, from around 10:10 to 10:20 on the same day, the Defendant expressed that “D real estate office in the operation of the Victim C” located in Seogsan-si B was “D” office, on the ground that the victim does not consent to use the land to use the Defendant’s house,” and that the victim expressed the victim’s desire to “Chos, flus, and flus, flus, flus, flus, and flus, flussium,” and caused the customers in the real estate office to go in the real estate office by force.

2. The defendant's lawsuit and summary of the grounds for appeal, and the judgment of the court below

A. The gist of the legal action and the grounds for appeal did not have any desire for the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below. However, only the victim's real estate office in the real estate office operated by the victim showed the victim's opinion by raising 5 minutes of the excessive amount.

On the contrary, even though it is difficult to see that the defendant exercised a power to suppress the will of a person, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on a different premise. The defendant's defense counsel stated the grounds for appeal in the statement of grounds for appeal in the statement of grounds for appeal in the statement of grounds for appeal, and stated the grounds for appeal in the statement of grounds for appeal in the statement of grounds for appeal

However, if the contents of the case are specifically examined, the defendant's act cannot be seen as an exercise of "defensive force" as stated in the crime of interference with business, and thus, the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles also is included in the grounds for appeal.

There is an error affecting the judgment.

B. The Defendant alleged not guilty in the lower court’s judgment to the same effect as the above grounds for appeal, but the lower court, based on the evidence in its holding, took a bath as stated in the facts constituting the offense, and avoided the disturbance.