The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is true that the defendant of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles prevents the victim from entering the victim's vehicle, but the defendant thought that C (hereinafter referred to as "stock company") a stock company with which he/she works in accordance with the soil and sand transport contract with E (the same applies to other companies) has entered the building site without title and prevented the victim from entering the building site in order to observe the construction site.

In E, without notifying the termination of the contract to C, unilaterally concluded a re-contract with the victim (F). Therefore, the Defendant, a C employee, needs to prevent the entry of the F vehicle.

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of interference with business, and even if the intention is recognized, the illegality should be avoided as it does not violate the social rules.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the determination of the misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is examined: ① entering into a soil and sand transport contract with E on March 23, 2017; ② soil and sand transport payment not received from E was remaining until the time of the instant crime; and ② E entered into a settlement agreement with C on August 22, 2017 and settled accounts with C on August 31, 2017; on the other hand, according to the soil and sand transport contract prepared between E and C, the contract period between E and C was up to June 22, 2017; ② the soil and sand transport contract was suspended; ② the soil and sand transport contract entered into with F on July 10, 2017.

In such factual relations, the following circumstances, i.e., E, the settlement of accounts with C, which were not completed, may be comprehensively taken into account the evidence mentioned above.