The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the fact that the defendant is faced with two walks in the bus driving direction, the defendant's act of selling is not natural when the defendant faces with bus and the side, and the victim stated that he was engaged in the slowly driving at the time of the instant case, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that he intentionally faced with bus and the victim interfered with the bus transport business of the victim, and the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that it erred in the misapprehension of the fact that the defendant intentionally interfered with the bus transport business of the victim.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined as follows, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (i) the Defendant stopped a bus from the bus entrance route to verify whether the replacement personnel were placed into a bus engineer at the time of the bus entrance to another bus operation route at the time of the instant case; (ii) the Defendant stopped a bus driver on the front of the bus; (iii) the victim stopped the bus at the time of stopping and photographing it on the front bus as above; and (iv) the Defendant stopped the I bus (hereinafter referred to as the “instant bus”); and (v) after completion of photographing the front of the said bus before the said J bus, the Defendant was forced to stop the bus at the speed of the instant bus due to his fault; and (v) the victim was found to have stopped the instant bus at the speed of the front bus; and (v) the victim was found to have stopped the instant bus due to his fault; and (v) the victim was found to have stopped the instant bus at the speed of the front bus; and (v) the Defendant was forced to stop the instant bus operation.