All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: Defendant A stops a vehicle on the side of a sloping vehicle while confirming who would be a director at the time of the instant case; thus, there was no criminal intent of interference with business; and Defendant A moved the vehicle to another place at the five minutes after the police officer called to the scene at the time of the instant case; thus, Defendant A’s act interfered with the duties of the Defendant.

shall not be effective.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Defendant

B Defendant B parked a vehicle on the side of a bridge after the completion of the director at the time of the instant case, and there was no risk of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

In the establishment of a crime of interference with business, the result of the interference with business is not required to be actually generated, and it is sufficient to cause the risk of causing the interference with business.

In addition, the term "constition of duties" includes not only interference with the execution of duties itself, but also interference with the management of duties (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002, etc.). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendants interfere with the movement of victims by force at the time of the instant case, and each of the defendants' arguments are without merit.

around 15, on the day of the instant case, the Defendants parked a bridge vehicle in front of the instant apartment building A and parked the vehicle in front of the instant apartment building, thereby moving the bridge. While the police officer, who submitted the legal relationship regarding A, A, 301 of the instant apartment building, submitted the documents, and sent the police officer J called the vehicle, the Defendants were about 30 minutes.