Defendants are innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged was that there was a dispute over the ownership of the victim D and Sinyoung-si E with a female, and by the judgment of Changwon District Court 2015 group 20857 decided January 22, 2016, part of the above land was confirmed to be owned by the victim.

The victim tried to crush part of the roads on his own land by the above judgment and the decision of execution, and the defendants tried to stop the said construction because the roads are the only roads to enter F with the operation of F.

On December 24, 2016, around 09:30 on December 24, 2016, the Defendants jointly reported the victim’s performance of road construction works by using the scools, and Defendant A obstructed the victim’s performance of road construction works by force by putting the scoos air.

2. Determination

A. In the case of obstruction of business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, the term "business" means a business or business that a person continues to engage in according to his/her social status and includes not only the main business but also the incidental business closely related thereto. However, a single business which is not a business to be conducted continuously does not constitute a business which becomes an object of obstruction of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do2394, Nov. 25, 1997; 97Do2394, Feb. 92, 193; 92Do29, Feb. 92, 1993; 1752, Sept. 88, 198; 175Do300, Apr. 9, 1985).

In the facts charged of this case, the defendants interfered with the road works of this case, and the victim is merely a one-time administrative work that damages a road in order to prevent the victim from using his own land as a road any longer due to its content or nature.