The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant invested 50% of the capital as C Hospital veterinarian, and the victim D, respectively, to the president of the C Hospital, and that the veterinary hospital was opened as a partnership business.

On October 26, 2012, around 11:30 on October 26, 2012, the Defendant, by force, obstructed the victim’s animal care service by force for about 15 minutes, namely, opening a back door of a medical clinic in which the victim reported medical treatment and making it impossible to temporarily return the investment money, on the grounds that the contract was terminated with mutual opinion and the contract was not returned at once.

2. The term "definite force, which is part of the constituent elements of the crime of interference with business under Article 314 of the Criminal Act," means a force sufficient to suppress the victim's free will in light of the offender's status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., although the victim's free will is not practically required to control.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendant’s act constitutes a threat of force to the victim’s free will on the sole basis of the aforementioned facts, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, in light of the following: (a) according to the health stand, witness D, F, G’s respective statutory statement, police statement, D’s statement, D’s statement, and F’s statement as to whether the Defendant exercised force on the instant case; (b) the Defendant, at the time and place of the foregoing, told the victim of the dispute regarding the settlement of the relationship between the victim and the victim; (c) however, in light of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim; (d) the background leading up to the Defendant’s act; and (e) the number of customers in the hospital at the time and location; and (e) there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the above act constituted a threat of force to the victim’s free will.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.