A. The Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of interference with business because the president of the K K Housing Redevelopment Project Association did not perform his duty to explain as prescribed by the relevant laws and regulations, by misunderstanding the facts or misapprehending the legal principles.

Examining the contents, means, etc. of the defendant's act at the time, it cannot be evaluated as a threat of social norms.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant got around 12:30 to a partnership office around 10:00.

It is recognized that the statement was made.

Around that time, the members of the K Emergency Countermeasures Committee, which promote the dissolution of the association, occupied the office of the association, and seems to have been able to resist the business promotion of the defendant India Association.

As the office occupation of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee did not proceed, and witnesses, such as directors, etc., participated in the act of the Emergency Countermeasure Committee because they committed acts of the Defendant at the time.

statement is made.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the subject and method of controlling the partnership's office and the circumstances that led to the process of selling buildings in other places, Defendant's motive and act, etc., the Defendant, in collusion with the members of the "K Emergency Countermeasures Committee" promoting the dissolution of the partnership, has been sufficiently recognized to interfere with the apartment sales business by force, such as the facts charged.

On the other hand, even if the president of the partnership did not perform part of the duty to explain as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be viewed that there is no value to protect the apartment sales business that was in progress.

In full view of the motive, means, background of the instant crime, continuous time, impact on the progress of the sales business, etc., it is sufficient to evaluate the Defendant’s act as a force in light of social norms.