The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, despite the fact that the defendant's act of obstructing the construction of the victim did not meet the requirements for a legitimate act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or misconception of the facts.

2. Determination

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who operates a c commercial building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

On or around July 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) before the instant commercial building on or around July 1, 2013, the victim E, a person in charge of the site belonging to D, who was awarded a contract for the container packing work, intends to perform the packing work; and (b) whether the Defendant “on or before walking the front cover of the other;

In the paragraph of the article that stated that the match should not be packed above, the construction could not be performed by blocking the above E and the working persons by taking a bath.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the work of the injured party by force.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was an act of lacking illegality on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s act, as a party to the instant construction, was a party to the instant construction project, and did not take into account the structure of the commercial building or the status of the shop, and it properly affected or pointed out appropriate construction methods, and thus, constitutes an act of lacking illegality. Accordingly, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone interferes with the construction of E and its employees.

(c)

The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the president of the operating center of the commercial building of this case, which are the following circumstances acknowledged by these evidence, were illegally extended by other merchants occupying the commercial building of this case after this case.