The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is difficult to deem the victim's duty of restoration work as legitimate, and even if the defendant did not have an intention to interfere with his duty, the court below convicted the charged facts of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The "work" subject to protection under the relevant legal principles refers to work or business that is engaged in an occupation or continuously and is worth protecting from invasion by another person's illegal act. It is not necessarily a lawful contract or administrative act which is the basis of such work. However, if a certain work or activity itself has a socially anti-sociality to the extent that it is considerably unreasonable due to the degree of illegality, it does not constitute "work that is subject to protection of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002, etc.). (b) In light of the above legal principles, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case in detail, stating in detail the "decision on the argument" part of the judgment of the court below, and in comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is justified, and in addition, it is recognized that the defendant erred by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the facts charged by the victim and the defendant's obstruction of restoration work as a whole.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

1) The facts constituting the crime indicated in the judgment below (hereinafter “instant case”).