The court below's use of the defendant's partial legal statement, the witness E's statement, and the police's statement in E as evidence of guilt violates the rules of evidence, and the defendant's resistance at the time of demanding the discontinuance of construction cannot be viewed as "power of force" of obstruction of business, and regardless of the defendant's provision, the victim is continuing construction, and therefore the obstruction of business cannot be established.

2. Determination

A. In order to establish a crime of interference with business by force under Article 314 of the Criminal Act, it does not require actual results of interference with business, but is sufficient if there is a risk of causing interference with business.

However, the occurrence of the risk must be by force.

The term "power of force" of the crime of interference with business refers to any force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person's free will. As such, not only violence and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, it does not require the restraint of the victim's free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim's free will in light of the offender's status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether it constitutes force ought to be made in an objective manner by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.

In addition, the power of interference with one's business does not necessarily mean that a person engaged in the business directly terminates the power, but it is impossible for the person to freely act by creating a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress another's free will.