The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged even though the act recorded in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a threat of interference with business affairs.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

The prosecutor applied for amendments to Bill of Indictment for the addition of the ancillary charges in the trial of the court, and since this court permitted and changed the subject of the trial, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

However, although there are reasons for reversal of authority above, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Examining the judgment below in light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the circumstance such as that it is difficult to deem that the defendant's act would immediately interfere with the victim's duties, since the duty of preventing the unauthorized person from entering the building as stated in the judgment below is included in the management of the victim's building, the court below's judgment of not guilty of the primary facts charged is sufficiently acceptable, and there is an error of misconception of facts

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

4. The judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio in accordance with Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision is delivered after pleadings, on the grounds that the above judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio.

【Grounds for another judgment】 The defendant is guilty of the facts charged in the preliminary charge of the crime.

On April 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 10:30 on April 28, 2016, when the victim D in Suwon-si C works as the managing director of the E Corporation, the Defendant was in front of the E Corporation’s separate office, and (b) the victim was able to enter the separate office, the head of the district office of education, the document, etc., and the outside person is prohibited from having access

“.............”