The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

(b) Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles do not have any desire to the victims, nor did they interfere with the victims' activities.

Even if the defendant expressed a great voice to the victims, the degree does not reach the sufficient degree to suppress the free will, so the defendant's act does not constitute a threat of interference with business.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

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

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant: (a) the publicly notified tenants of “C” on the floor* of the Ma-dong B building in Seongbuk-si, Sung-si; (b) the victim E is the above publicly notified tenants; and (c) the victim F is the general director.

At around 12:00 on January 31, 2018, the Defendant returned to the hallway, and called “C”, “I am sn and frozen ..............” and the Defendant stated to the effect that “I am back to another place in which I am back the money if I am sn and frozen .................., I am sn and you am back to the other place in which I am back the money if I am back to the Defendant.........., I am to the victim E, and I am am sn and am back to the Defendant.”

Accordingly, the victim E demanded that the Defendant “I see that I would like to see outside the floor that would interfere with the business of other people,” and the Defendant continued to reject it, and continuously expressed in the corridor the victim E’s desire and sound, and continued to do so, the victim F, “I am feas, feas,” and the victim F, “I am feas,” and interfere with the victim’s notification board operation for about 15 minutes by force.

B. The “defluence” of the crime of interference with business in determining whether it is a type or form of force that may disrupt the free will of people.