The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of this judgment is publicly announced.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. In addition to parking spaces, the following concrete machine parts are not included in the scope of the removal order of the Seo-gu Office of Gwangju, and the victim F, the head of the management office, was aware of this through telephone calls with the public official in charge at the time of the above removal of the machine parts, and thus the victim's removal of concrete machine parts does not constitute the business worthy of protection under the law.

B. The expression of a claim as to illegal removal is that Defendant C set up his own vehicle near the access road at the construction site, and the Defendants resist and resist, and that Defendant A and C obstructed the front of the excavation does not constitute sufficient force to suppress the victim’s free will.

C. Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes a constituent element of the crime of interference with business, the Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate act in recognition of the reasonableness of the means and method.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) Defendant C’s obstruction of business from April 28, 2017 to November 40, 2017, the Defendant is the E Center located in Gwangju-gu (hereinafter “instant Center”).

In accordance with the order to remove parking facilities of the Seo-gu Office in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, the head of the management office of the above E Center prevented the defendant from allowing access to the construction site to a passenger car because the victim F did not have any consultation or notification to the right holder while removing parking facilities. The victim interfered with approximately 40 minutes of construction by saying, “I am you would am you would am you you would am you would am you you would see the removal in his capacity.” Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the victim’s work by force. 2) The defendants interfered with the victim’s work from around 13:30 on April 28, 2017 to 14:00 on the same ground as the above paragraph 1 at the same place as the above paragraph 1 at the victim F.