Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to this part of the facts charged in light of the evidence and records duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that this part of the facts charged was guilty, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

2. We examine ex officio the remainder except for the Mar. 30, 2007 Mar. 30, 2007 Mar. 30, 2007

In full view of the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant was unable to provide a school by taking care of his adopted evidence that he was able to take a bath to the teachers of W/X or by taking a bath to the victims of the crime of interference with business in the first and second classes of I elementary school, and found the defendant guilty of the crime of interference with business on the premise that the "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business in the Criminal Act includes the students' attendance of school attendance.

B. However, “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of an occupation or other social status (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1256, Oct. 28, 2004). Elementary school students’ right to attend school to attend school and take lessons in classroom classes is merely a right to receive early education without compensation as provided by Article 31 of the Constitution, and the State’s duty to conduct compulsory education as provided by Article 12 and Article 13 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, or a parent’s duty to attend school, or a duty to perform the State or parents’ duty to attend school is merely a continuous work based on a “work or other social status.”