The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles) was that the Defendant, as the owner of neighboring land at the construction site of this case, did not interfere with construction works such as material volume, concrete strawing, etc., which were located at the construction site in the course of responding to the damage caused by the boundary erosion, etc. due to the instant construction works, or was sitting at the construction site of this case, and did not interfere with the Defendant’s marking of such terms does not constitute force on the crime of interference with business.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for the amendment to a bill of amendment of indictment with the contents of the indictment as stated in the indictment after the modification of the indictment after the prosecutor made the judgment at the trial. Since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant was found to have committed repeated disturbance, such as holding materials in the construction site of this case where the parts move, such as concrete removal, etc., as stated in the revised facts charged, and obstructing passage, delaying construction work scheduled to be accumulated near the work vehicle, and passing off the Rabs installed to control the vehicle, etc., while exercising the real force, such as walking the Rabs installed for the purpose of vehicle control.

The defendant asserts that each statement of E, C, F, and G, which the court below explained as evidence of guilt, is not reliable because it is inconsistent or ambiguous, and that the defendant's characteristics of such statement are sufficient to dismiss its credibility.