The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) ① The defendant can verify the fact that the victim was suffering from time to time to time at the convenience store, and the defendant got home from the police officer who was urged to return home from the police officer, and had the entrance of the convenience store again after the police officer returned to the victim, and had the victim go back to the face of the victim and sprinking tobacco smoke, etc., so the defendant's intention to interfere with the defendant's business is recognized. ② The victim's "I will enter the defendant's entrance in front of the entrance entrance above the rest of the rest."

“The Defendant stated that he would not speak while doing so.” The Defendant’s behavior revealed that the Defendant’s public play was limited to the road between convenience stores and other stores, if the customers who had been shicked in the front of convenience stores due to the Defendant’s behavior were to the extent of leaving. The Defendant’s act of walking the Defendant’s vision to the victim and raising tobacco smoke to face the victim’s face would exercise sufficient tangible power to suppress the victim’s free will. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, acquitted.

According to C’s statement protocol, each site photograph, and CD’s film, the Defendant 30 minutes before the D convenience point operated by C, and the Defendant scam the rubber machine scam to the scam scam on the road. The Defendant scam with 2,3 foreigners in the past, and play in the public by combining with 2,00 foreigners, and the scam scam to the scam at the convenience point scam. The Defendant was dispatched to the police by reporting by C to the police, and after the Defendant was posted to the police, scam scam.