The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The establishment of the crime of interference with business by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the crime of interference with business) shall be sufficient to lead to the risk of interference with business, not to require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, and shall include not only interference with the execution of business itself, but also interference with the management of business.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it can be acknowledged that the defendant suspended the victim's dental treatment by stating that the defendant was a large interest in dental treatment operated by the victim and "the medical records were operated". Thus, the defendant's act of this case results in obstructing the victim's dental treatment duties.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. A. Around June 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 15:14 on June 3, 2015, the summary of the facts charged: (b) two employees of the victim’s “Eche” operated by the victim D on the third floor of the Yansan-gu Cbuilding; (c) six patients and patients waiting for the medical examination and treatment at this dental site; and (d) the face of the victim’s dental treatment at another hospital. A doctor must undergo surgery at the other hospital. He/she operates the medical records photographs of our children at a time. He/she reported that he/she would directly change the medical records; and (d) by force ten minutes until the police called out, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s dental treatment by force.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, recognized the same facts as the reasons indicated in the judgment, and, in other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the same facts.