The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) states that the Defendant, as the executive body of the Countermeasure Committee, was the victim D, E, and E’s construction work should be prevented in the enforcement department, while the Defendant, as the executive body of the Countermeasure Committee, stated that there was no direct order from the farmer to prevent the farmer, and that there was no direct order from the farmer, it is recognized that the residents of the village would not be responsible for the problem, and that H, the executive body of the Countermeasure Committee, was determined by the Police and the Court to prevent access roads through a meeting of the Countermeasure Committee, and prevented H, who was the executive member of the Countermeasure Committee, from exercising the right to access roads at the site. The Defendant interfered with the victim’s construction work, taking into account the fact that the executive body stated that “the access roads was prevented by means of a Tracter and the victim’s statement was consistent with this.”

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the defendant, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for its determination.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed as having proved beyond reasonable doubt, and thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the public prosecutor in the judgment below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.

On the other hand, as to the interrogation protocol prepared by the judicial police officer in relation to H, which includes the part of the statement that “I have done so in the executive organ (the access road was prevented using five parking lots)” (the investigative record No. 158; hereinafter “H protocol”) and the above statement of the witness H in the court below (the trial record No. 156-157 pages).