The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the trial in question shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding is true that the Defendant, who was at the construction site, was downloaded in front of the crane at the construction site, but the victim D was not engaged in the file shooting at the construction site at the time, and thus, the Defendant did not interfere with the victim’s work.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely takes necessary minimum measures under the circumstances where the injured party actively agreed on the infringement of the right to view and noise, dust, spawn, and view caused by construction works, and thus, the Defendant’s act should be pronounced not guilty.

2. Determination

A. In light of the various circumstances duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant was preparing for the victim by dricking in front of crickers at the victim’s construction site.

It can be sufficiently recognized that the discontinuance of file resistance operations may interfere with the work.

In light of the above, the defendant rejected the same argument in the trial of the defendant.

The following circumstances found by the court below, which were duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., (i) the victim is performing preparatory work by heating the relevant heavy equipment prior to navigation; (ii) the defendant was performing preparatory work for others at the time indicated in the facts charged of this case; and (iii) the police officer, who was dispatched at the demonstration site, was also in the presence of the pole at the right side of the site photograph in which the victim was moving the pole to another port for navigation (which was suspended from work and the pole was set up in a vertical line (the page 15 through 18 of the investigation record).