The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor is innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that the Defendant interfered with the Victim’s business by parking a car or connecting the car with an electric cable to the place of business operated by the victim. However, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles for the following reasons. (1) The victim’s operation of the 1t cargo vehicle does not interfere with the Victim’s delivery business because it does not interfere with the passage, and even if the Defendant’s operation of a large vehicle interfered with the Victim’s business of supplying bread, it cannot be deemed that the victim’s operation interfered with the Victim’s business even if the Defendant’s operation of a large vehicle did not interfere with the Victim’s business. (2) The Defendant’s act of parking and connecting the Defendant’s vehicle with the passenger cable cannot be deemed to have been sufficient to suppress the Victim’s free will, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act did not interfere with the Defendant’s operation of the above vehicle, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s passage of the vehicle.

B. When applying CCTV images to a prosecutor (not guilty part in the original judgment), the Defendant did not have the intent to commit the crime of causing property damage to the Defendant, since the Defendant’s act of putting bbbbbbbox, which was originally stated in this part of the facts charged, was based on the father’s negligence

Even if any, its own act.