The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of prosecutor's appeal grounds;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (not guilty part of the lower judgment) D is that the Defendant could not enter the instant office by changing two entrances of 101 (hereinafter “instant office”) of the building C located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant office”) at the investigative agency on July 2, 2015, by all means, the Defendant was unable to enter the instant office.

The key to the office of this case is changed in order to communicate with the lessee D who does not pay a monthly rent at the Defendant India investigative agency.

The statement that D only submitted the front photograph of the entrance to the investigation agency may be liable for the replacement of the key to the legal issue or opening the door in the front of the defendant.

It was intended to inform the defendant of the posting of the notice "," and such circumstance alone, the defendant did not replace the back door correction device among the entrance.

It cannot be readily concluded, and D’s staff E had an even number of office doors around July 2, 2015 from the original court to the original court.

The statement can only be a evidence to prove the fact that the defendant damaged the correction device and entered the office of this case, and it is irrelevant to whether the defendant replaced the back door correction device, and E entered the office of this case along with D on the day of this case in the court of original instance, and all the entrance correction device was changed.

In light of the statement, it can be recognized that the defendant arbitrarily alters two corrective devices of the entrance door of the office of this case leased to D and prevents D from entering the office of this case, thereby hindering D from exercising its rights.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by finding not guilty of interference with exercise of rights among the facts charged in this case.

B. In light of the fact that the illegal criminal defendant denies some of the crimes and did not reflect, the court sentenced to a fine of KRW 400,000.