The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

At around 16:40 on December 16, 201, the Defendant arbitrarily broadcasted without following the relevant procedures at the management office of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the management office of the victim by force, including continuing to broadcast despite the victim D, who is the head of the management office of the above management office, even though he/she prevented the victim D, who is the head of the management office of the above management office.

Judgment

Witness

According to D's testimony and video viewing results, it is confirmed that there is a situation in which the defendant and D lose each other by neglecting D's defect that the defendant intends to broadcast, and the defendant and D lose each other.

① At around December 201, the defendant left the head of the management office and frequently broadcasted while working at the management office. On the other hand, D first left the head of the management office on the same day, and D was the head of the management office, ② The defendant was found not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the defendant interfered with the business by force, because it was not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's act of blocking the broadcasts was interfered with the business by force, and there was no other evidence to recognize otherwise.