The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below found the defendant not guilty of interfering with the business of this case, although it could have sufficiently recognized the defendant's intention to obstruct the lease business of D by deceptive means, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts or

2. The court below found the Defendant not guilty of all the facts charged of this case, and the prosecutor only filed an appeal as to the obstruction of business, and the portion of the Defendant’s acquittal as to the damage of property was separated and finalized as it is, on the ground that the prosecutor did not appeal as to the damage of property.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the obstruction of business.

3. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below held that the defendant interfered with the lease business of the complainant by fraudulent means because it is difficult for the defendant to lease to a third party by attaching a paper size of A4 paper, stating "I going to go to her," among the drawings attached to the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not lease from D, which stated that "I go to her," among the drawings attached to the judgment of the court below, the size of 5, 6, 77 portion (hereinafter "unleased portion"), among the documents attached to the judgment of the court below that the defendant did not lease from D, the defendant's above change is difficult to conclude that the defendant's above change was not acceptable, and ② the paper attached to "I go to her" was attached to the above "I go to her for 3 to 4 months," and ③ the defendant did not make any specific statement to the judicial scrivener at the time of the complaint."