The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the Defendant’s partial statements at an investigative agency and the statement of H, etc., the court below erred by misapprehending the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, by misunderstanding the facts that the Defendant obstructed the general meeting of the president of the redevelopment association by allowing H to cancel G rental, which was selected as the place to hold the general meeting of shareholders, as described in the facts charged in this case, and by allowing H to cancel

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the chairperson of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee, who is a member of the D Redevelopment Association in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim E is the president of the D Redevelopment Association.

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant rented the above place around 15:00 on June 10, 2016 to hold an ordinary general meeting of the association in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, the Defendant, along with the members of the Emergency Countermeasures Committee in the name of about 20 persons in charge of the G Rental work, has over his/her power to hold the general meeting of the association, and the Defendant could not rent the above place in the future if he/she can hold the general meeting of the association.

The term "abreging that caused the cancellation of the rental."

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the general meeting of the redevelopment partnership president by force.

B. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant et al. was threatened by the defendant on the day of the case.

I did not think, but did not think that the G users were "the cancellation of the rent by taking into account the fact that the general users are mainly juveniles and in the event of a disturbance, damage to other users is likely to occur." In light of the above statement, the defendant exercised sufficient force to suppress the victim's free will.

In addition, there is no reasonable doubt only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.