The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to all the evidence of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the court below erred in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the Defendant could sufficiently acknowledge that he obstructed the victim’s gathering of earth and sand by force.

2. Determination

A. On July 3, 2015, the Defendant, at around 07:00, obstructed gathering of earth and sand in the construction site by exercising authority, by exercising force, such as: (a) while the Victim D was working to gather soil and sand by using the devices in the gathering site located in the area of earth and sand located in North Korea-gun C; (b) not making discussions; and (c) selling too deep land to the engineers working in the work site; and (d) sounding them only.

B. The lower court determined as follows based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the amount of soil and stones collected permitted in the permission to engage in the development activities of the instant land is 7,762 cubic meters, and the Defendant also mentioned the extent of 800 dump in advance by the victim.

The statement is consistent with this (based on about 10 cubic meters per dump). The defendant had the expression that he had already dumpeded 1,00 pump articles to reflect on the quantity of 1,00 earth and sand, and sufficient concerns about the removal of a large quantity of earth and sand than the initial agreement. ② D asserts that there was no error in the construction by proceeding with the process of collecting earth and sand, restoring, and flating in accordance with the design drawing. However, there was a partial plan and failure to seek a prior explanation and understanding on the specific public law. In light of the quantity of soil and sand taken out, it appears that the defendant was planning to perform restoration works with contents other than soil and sand taken out, ③ there was no prior understanding of the defendant regarding whether interference through the exercise of the real force for construction works constitutes interference with the work by a third party.