The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) D’s employee, as argued by the Defendant at the lower court, should use the instant tourist bus without being indicated by the Defendant, and make it clear in the investigation process if the instant tourist bus is between the two; (b) the Defendant, without making any mentioning it at all, has taken the instant tourist bus at his own company at the time of the police investigation.

In addition, in view of the relationship between the defendant and F, it should be viewed that the defendant was aware of F's actions at the time.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the representative director of (ju) D, a company that is a branch company of C Tourist Buses, and sells the above tourist bus at KRW 35 million to E, a party who is a party to a loan, around September 5, 2013, and received KRW 19.5 million in total for the purpose of paying down payment and installment payments, etc. by October 2014.

The above tourist bus should be submitted to the competent authority a regular inspection result table every six months, and the permission for operation of the business should be extended. Even if the victim of the land owner submitted the results of the regular inspection results table to the (State) D, a local company, around October 2014, the permission for operation of the business was revoked because it was not submitted to the competent authority. The victim did not pay installments from November 2014.

On May 2015, the Defendant: (a) through F, a State D’s staff member, carried out the above tourist bus parked at the front of the H located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, on the front of May 2015, by arbitrarily towing it without the consent of the victim; and (b) obstructed the victim’s legitimate exercise of rights to the above tourist bus.

3. Determination

A. The court below held that the police interrogation protocol of the defendant against the defendant is inadmissible in the court of the court below, and thus it is not admissible.

The statement of victim E is the case of this case by the defendant.