The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, who is a factual error, brought about the growth of the Defendant by the recommendation of G, which was delegated by the victimized company with the custody of the development period of this case, and therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention

Even if not, the illegality is excluded because the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s duly adopted and examined the judgment on obstruction of the exercise of rights are as follows: (i) the victim company and the Defendant continued to dispute over the issue of payment of the price for the development period of this case at the time of this case; (ii) the victim company dismantled the development period of this case and decided to install a new power generator, and (iii) the victim company, who was in charge of electrical construction, was called for dismantling the power plant of this case, immediately left the cargo vehicle at the construction site; (iv) the victim company did not have any contact or confirmation at the construction site; and (iii) the victim company did not have any contact or confirmation with the victim company in the process; (iv) the defendant did not appear to keep the development period of this case at the police; (v) the defendant did not appear to have been in a well-known situation with the development period of this case; (v) the defendant was living well at the time, but there was a problem in civil law; and (v) the defendant did not know that there was any problem in the process of this case’s development.