The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented by the prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, since the victim's director's duties can be deemed as a field warden belonging to the corporation B (hereinafter referred to as "B"), the court below found the victim not guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though they constitute " duties" subject to protection of obstruction of business. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in this case is the management department B, and C, D, and E are those who work for one-time duty at the construction site.

On June 15, 2016, the Defendant instructed C to prohibit the entrance of the parking lot to prevent the victim F from leaving the equipment in G office, and to prevent the victim C, D, and E from leaving the vehicle.

Accordingly, C, D, and E stopped from 17:20 to 18:20 on the same day at the entrance of the G management office parking lot located in G management office in Ha in Ha in Ha, and prevented the injured person from carrying the equipment owned by him/her in his/her office on the J Poter, which is the vehicle that takes the possession of the equipment in his/her office.

Accordingly, the defendant instigated C, D, and E to interfere with the director's duty of the victim by force.

B. The lower court determined that the victim’s director’s duty of aiding and abetting C, D, and E cannot be deemed as a continuous incidental business that continuously engages in duties or business based on the victim’s occupational or social status or is closely indivisible with the victim’s main duties, and the mere disposable duties are not limited to a single-time business, and thus, cannot be deemed as constituting a “business” subject to protection of interference with the victim’s duties, and there is no other evidence to support that the Defendant instigated the victim to interfere with the victim’s duties.