The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The duty of growing turfs by leasing 22 lots of land, such as the victim D (hereinafter “victim”) this Jeju F, etc. is subject to protection under the Criminal Act. The Defendant’s act of not opening locks installed at the entrance and exit door used for entering and leaving the said land according to G’s instruction, which is the actual owner of some of the above land (hereinafter “the locks of this case”), constitutes an act that interferes with the victim’s duty by force.

Ultimately, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is a person who conducts a safriculture in Jeju and four parcels, and the victim is a person who leases 22 lots near the above place to another farming association E and engages in a safriculture.

On May 2014, the Defendant installed 22 lots of land such as the F, etc. at Jeju-si, and installed locks from which people and automobiles are unable to enter.

On May 2014, the victim requested that the above locks be opened over several times for work, such as cultivation of turf, etc., but the defendant did not contain it.

Accordingly, the defendant was just and continuously interfering with the victim's growing of turf.

B. In full view of the facts and overall circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court rendered a judgment that the victim’s work of cultivating turf cannot be deemed as a business subject to protection under the Criminal Act, and the victim requested the Defendant to open the locks of this case around May 2014, but the Defendant did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the victim was obstructed from growing turfing, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.

(c)

1) According to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the facts of recognition are determined as follows.