The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is that the land in this case where the defendant installed a pentice constitutes the land provided for the general public's passage, and since the victim was significantly obstructed by the defendant's pentice installation, the defendant's act of installing a pentice on the land in this case constitutes interference with the business by force, the judgment below which acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The lower court determined as follows: (a) from September 1, 2018 to September 1, 2018, the victim operated Mat (hereinafter “D”) with the trade name “D” (hereinafter “the instant marina”); and (b) the E land adjacent to the instant marina (hereinafter “the instant land”) owned by the Defendant; (c) the Defendant experienced conflicts with the victim for about seven years due to the trade of the F land owned by the victim in the instant marina; (d) on November 27, 2018, under the instant facts charged, a bridge, such as the steel structure, installed on the instant land (hereinafter “the instant structure”); (c) the Defendant parked the instant land from around the instant structure or immediately used the instant land for the purpose of restoring the instant land to its original state without permission, on the following grounds: (e) the Defendant was unable to use the instant land for the purpose of restoring the land to its original state without permission, and (e) the Defendant’s use of the instant land for the purpose of restoring to its original state without permission.