The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the management department B, and C, D, and E are those who work for one-time position 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.

2. The term “business” subject to protection of interference with judgment refers to a business or business that continues to engage in an occupation or social status and includes a single-time incidental business closely indivisible with such main business, but does not constitute a single-time business that continues to engage in an indivisible relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do1752, Sept. 12, 1989; 92Do292, Feb. 9, 1993). However, the victim’s director’s director’s duties that the victim instigated interfering with C, D, or E cannot be deemed as a continuous incidental business that continues to engage in an occupation or social status based on the victim’s occupation or social status, or that the victim’s main business is an indivisible relationship with the victim’s main business, and there is no evidence that the victim’s act constitutes a interference with the victim’s duty.