The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) between August 11, 201 and 21:30 of the same day from August 11, 201 to 21:30 of the same day, the Defendant: (b) between the Defendant: (c) the victim D (W, 49 years of age) of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Cbuilding 302 to the office of “E”, the representative director; (d) the Defendant found the victim as a matter of claim against F, who is the president of the said company; and (e) the Defendant: (c) the Plaintiff, who was suffering from disturbance of the office book, caused the Plaintiff to go back, thereby obstructing the victim’s investment-related business by force.

2. The evidence that corresponds to the facts charged in the instant case lies in D’s statement and written statement of the police (police) and the witness F’s legal statement (seventh protocol of trial) to the effect that the Defendant was unable to resist by taking the victim D’s bath and drinking his book.

However, each of such statements is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court, or lack of probative value to prove the facts charged of this case, and there is no other evidence to deem the facts charged of this case guilty.

The force of the crime of interference with business should be capable of suppressing and mixing human free will.

However, the defendant's act of this case seems to be merely an increase in the meaning of "F's office" in the process of demanding repayment of debt, and even if the defendant expressed D's assertion that he was able to take a bath to D and take a book, the obligation of obligation is merely an issue between the defendant and F, and D freely downloads the employee's office or the investor's office at F's office, and the defendant's statement that he would not take part in the issue of credit with F at the time, and that he would not take part in the issue of credit with F's office at the time, it is sufficient that the above behavior of the defendant is likely to disrupt and confuse D's free will without any direct legal relation.