The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Reasons for appeal (misunderstanding of facts);

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the primary facts charged, the victim is suspected to have reported some sides of the defendant in light of the store CCTV, etc. in which the crime scene was taken, and thus, it is unclear whether the defendant was considered to have suffered mental or physical disease at the time of the instant case, and therefore, it constitutes a crime of interference with business for force.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the ancillary facts charged, the Defendant suffered loss from selling the packaging boxes owned by the victim or goods in a relationship with the victim by tearing 200,000 won in total at the market price of the victim, and thus, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had the intent to damage property.

2. Determination

A. Considering the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below regarding the primary facts charged reveals that the defendant was unable to control the defense due to the non-contentious reason based on the judgment of the court below.

Inasmuch as there is reasonable doubt to view that the evidence of this case alone had the intent to obstruct the Defendant’s business.

On the grounds that it is insufficient to view it as being not guilty of the primary facts charged, it is just and acceptable, and since no new evidence corresponding to the primary facts charged has been submitted in the trial, there is an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor in the judgment of the court below as to the primary facts charged, as alleged by the prosecutor.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

B. A thorough examination of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, based on the judgment of evidence in the court below, ① the evidence in this case alone has removed the original packaging condition of 2 sets and Doma and the Defendant’s packaging.