The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the fact that the noise generated by the Defendant was a telephone call with both desire, and that the noise generated was an corridor within the building directly connected to the sports center, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force.

However, the court below which acquitted the defendant has erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On May 30, 2017, from around 16:30 to around 16:45, the Defendant sent the victim D’s “E” on the same day to the victim and the sports center construction cost-related issues in front of the sports center, and interfered with the operation of the sports center of the victimized person by force by putting the horses into the victim’s speech that “E will take place on the ground of this disease, weather expule, opening, and the four parents having the same feste.”

B. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone led to the suppression of the victim’s free will as referred to in the crime of interference with the business.

(1) The Defendant requested the victim to pay the construction cost while making a mobile phone call, and the victim heard his/her bath and recorded the content of conversation, such as the abusive language that the victim had made to the Defendant, and thereafter, the victim sought to the Taekwondo Sports Center operated by the victim who did not receive the Defendant’s telephone.

② The victim stated that the Defendant, who was found in front of a gymnasium, filed a mixture of complaints with the Defendant, and the Defendant was spacker with the conversation recorded in a mobile phone from outside the gymnasium. Here, the Defendant is indoors of a gymnasium.