The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the results of CCTV image reproduction and victim's statement of interference with business, although the defendant found the cosmetics and took a bath as stated in the facts charged on the day before the occurrence of the instant case (hereinafter "the instant store"), and returned to the victim, it is recognized that the defendant found the above store and took a bath at the time stated in the facts charged, and avoided the disturbance. Even if the time of the Defendant’s disturbance was short on the day of the instant case, in light of the above point, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant's act was likely to interfere with the business of the instant store, which constitutes crime of interference with business.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. According to the statement of the court below by the victim of the assault, the victim was a victim of the assault outside the door of the store of this case, and only part of the CCTV of this case was taken out inside the store.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on the ground that the face of violence does not confirm CCTV images, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. On February 12, 2015, at around 15:20 on February 12, 2015, the Defendant interfered with business, the Defendant: (a) expressed the desire of the victim F, an employee of the store, on the ground that the victim F, was not aware of his/her national card; (b) avoided the disturbance for about 30 minutes; and (c) obstructed women’s cosmetic sales by force by having the customers who purchased the cosmetic out of the facility.

B. The Defendant’s assault A.

At the time, at the time, at the place, the expression “to the end of the year,” and the defendant who interferes with the duties of the victim.