The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) (hereinafter referred to as “the above factory”) was established and used by the Defendant at the office located in the factory listed in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “the factory of this case”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below in relation to interference with the business around August 20, 2016, but the above office was merely removed and removed at the victim’s demand for eviction, and there was only the fact that the entire distribution was removed and removed, and ② in relation to interference with the business around November 5, 2016, the entire electric wires supplied to the workplace listed in paragraph (1) (hereinafter referred to as “victim’s workplace”) as indicated in the judgment of the court below were suspended from supplying electricity by cutting or picking electricity, etc., and ③ in relation to interference with the business of the Defendant’s vehicle around September 30, 2016, the Defendant did not interfere with the above business of the victim’s vehicle.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was found to have obstructed the victim's work by force as stated in the judgment below. Thus, the defendant's misconception of facts is without merit.

A. The victim has consistently interfered with the victim's business by force, as stated in the decision of the court below, by an investigative agency to the court of the court below.

statement is made.

B. On August 20, 2016, the Defendant asserted that the overall distribution of the instant office was suspended by removing the entire distribution of the instant office around August 20, 2016, and that the entire distribution of the instant office was established by the Defendant, and thus, the overall removal of the office does not interfere with the business of the victim even if the Defendant entirely removed the office.

However, the office of this case had already been installed prior to the Defendant installed the entire distribution unit, but the Defendant’s removal of the existing distribution unit and new distribution unit.