The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the consistent statement of the victim's credibility, the defendants are not the chairperson in relation to the victim, according to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles).

Recognizing the fact that the injured person was pushed out by a large sound called "math not a consul," and that the injured person was pushed out to the end of the passage, and even if the Defendants did not commit an act to injure the injured person, it constitutes the threat of interference with business by going out only the above large sound.

Nevertheless, the court below cannot recognize this.

In light of the facts charged, the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to believe the victim’s statement to the effect that the Defendants sent the victim to the elevator upon the end of the passage, and that the Defendants are not the victim’s victim.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the act of a public prosecutor’s failure to exchange a consul constitutes “power of force” of the crime of interference with business. The remaining evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone cannot be found guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the Defendants were acquitted on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The judgment of the court below is examined in comparison with the relevant legal principles and records, and evidence that corresponds to the fact that the defendants exercised physical force against the victim is the victim's statement, and the victim took witness of the National Assembly assistant H and other witnesses are also other witnesses. However, H did not view that the defendants did not keep the victim in an elevator.

The victim clearly stated that it is difficult for the victim to believe the victim's statement in light of the fact that the additional witness did not expressly state his/her personal information solely on the ground that he/she is aged.