The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Business obstruction: The complainants were engaged in the preparation of litigation documents against the complainants (Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2014Na20310, 2014Na44039) at the office of the lien in the building B in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, where they were in charge of preparing litigation documents against the complainants, and the preparation of the above litigation documents constitutes duties continuously engaged in duties based on their social status. In addition, even if they were in violation of the above right of retention in the process of commencing the above duties, considering the circumstances where the complainants exercised the right of retention, and circumstances where the judgment that the right of retention was not established at the time when the defendant's container office intrudes the defendant's container office did not become final, the court below found the complainants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, in light of the fact that the defendant's act of intrusion upon the structure, the method of exercising the right of retention, etc., and the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The term "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act, which is based on occupation or other social status, refers to work or business continuously engaged in according to the status of occupation or other social life, and is based on the occupation or social status.