The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal can be recognized that the defendant could interfere with the stable operation of the victim by exercising his/her authority by force with the intention of interfering with the business, the court below cannot recognize this fact, and all of the facts charged in this case was acquitted, the court below erred by misapprehending the

2. Determination

A. On May 11, 2018, the lower court determined that: (a) the Defendant used a nearby farm road by way of parking a vehicle on the access road to which he/she had access road in the usual land; (b) the access road in this case was used by means of informing the Defendant by means of sounding the horn, etc. when only one vehicle can pass through only one road; and (c) the Defendant did not directly require the Defendant to move the vehicle other than that of his/her own vehicle on May 11, 2018; (c) the Defendant moved the vehicle before the arrival of the police; (d) the time the Defendant reported the vehicle to the police (13:57) and the time when the Defendant reported the vehicle to the Defendant (14:02, around 14:33). However, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act of obstructing the Defendant’s use of the vehicle on the ground that it was not legitimate to have interfered with the Defendant’s duty to install the access road or that it did not interfere with the Defendant’s use of the vehicle.