The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the summary of the grounds for appeal was the fact that the defendant prevented the supply of electricity, it was only for the inspection of electricity, and there was no intention to interfere with the business, and there was no fact that the victim or his employees could not have access to the factory.

At the time of the incident, the factory was not operated properly because the damaged person did not supply the materials properly and did not pay wages, and there was no work to interfere with the construction of machinery necessary for sand production, but did not yet produce sand.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found all of the charges of this case guilty on different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserted to the effect of innocence as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of this case on the grounds that the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant obstructed the operation of the factory of the victim by blocking electricity and preventing access to the factory of the victim employees by comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated.

1) The Defendant made a statement at an investigative agency to the effect that “the Defendant prevented electricity for the purpose of warning because he did not proceed with the work to produce sand in a situation in which the victim did not pay joint usage fees and did not contact with the Defendant.”

2) In fact, the Defendant’s employees who actually cut off electricity stated to the effect that “only cut off electricity at the time of electrical inspection.” However, it is recognized that the Defendant’s side did not notify the victim’s employees working at the factory as well as the victim’s employees working at the factory of the electrical inspection. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s above statement as it is.

3) The Defendant’s assertion, even if any.