The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and misapprehension of legal principles (the part that interferes with the business set forth in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below): In light of the Defendant’s view, location, and subsequent business conditions on the victim restaurant parking lot as set out in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the court below, the Defendant did not pose a risk that the Defendant’s earth and sand might interfere with the victim’s business.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below 1) The defendant is the owner of the cafeteria in the original city C, and the victim E is the tenant of the above cafeteria.

On May 20, 2014, at the above restaurant parking lot around 10:00, the Defendant: (a) ordered the dump truck article, whose name is unknown, to put the dump truck article on two dump truck with earth and put it on the parking lot; (b) the victim attempted to restrain the dump truck from putting the earth on the ground; and (c) ordered the above article to put the victim’s chest into the dum, “hinging the soil on the ground”, and put the victim’s chest into the parking lot in the business place.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim's restaurant business by force.

2) The lower court’s judgment held that the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, in full view of the following: (a) according to the investigation and evidence adopted by the lower court, the Defendant could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the restaurant business of the victimized person, as stated in the facts charged; and (b) the Defendant’s specific form of the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant case,

On the other hand, the above facts charged were found guilty.

B. 1) Interference with the relevant legal principles is an abstract risk offender, and the actual interference with the victim’s duties is likely to result in a disturbance.