The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts, even though the Defendants could have acknowledged that the Defendants obstructed the work of construction of solar power infrastructure by the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “instant site”) on October 19 and October 22, 2018.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of facts constituting an offense in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence of probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt, to the extent that there is no room for a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such a conviction, even if there is a doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). B.

The lower court stated to the effect that: (a) the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court are: (i) the Defendants’ form cannot be confirmed from the photographs taken by the affected company at the time of submitting the instant site accompanied by the accusation report; (ii) the managing director M of the victimized company appears in the investigative agency to have no photographs from the Defendant A to the scene; and (iii) the lower court stated to the effect that “Defendant B was not present at the instant site (the 17th page of the evidence record)”; and (iv) the lower court did not know whether the Defendant A was at the instant site on October 19, 2018 and October 22, 2018; (v) the name of the village other than the Defendant (the 87th page of the litigation record); and (v) the Defendant testifieded to the purport that “Defendant A was the representative of the community other than the Defendant (the 3rd resident at the instant site”).