The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the first protocol of interrogation of the police officer against the defendant, cited in the part of the judgment of the court below as to the defendant's argument, is written without the statement of the defendant, and there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to admissibility of evidence.

B. Although there was a fact that there was an act such as mistake of facts as stated in each of the facts charged of this case, there was no intention of interference with and intimidation.

2. Determination

A. According to Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act, determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle’s assertion, the protocol of interrogation of a suspect prepared by an investigative agency other than a public prosecutor may be admitted as evidence only when the defendant who was the suspect or defense counsel admitted the contents thereof at a preparatory hearing or a trial date. The above provision does not mean that the contents of the protocol of interrogation of a suspect are written as stated in the statement, but that such statement conforms

However, according to the records of this case, the defendant consistently denies the facts charged as to obstruction of business among the facts charged of this case by asserting that he had no intention to interfere with business in the same manner from the first trial date of the court below to the trial court, and therefore, the defendant should be deemed not to recognize the contents of the statement of the police interrogation protocol as to the facts charged of obstruction of business.

Therefore, on the first trial date of the court below on the record, the statement that the defendant recognized the above documentary evidence was erroneous by viewing the defendant as the statement circumstance, or the fact that the defendant stated as such was stated was stated.