가. 사실 오인 및 법리 오해 피해자 D이 자신의 가게에서 샤넬 모조품을 판매하고 있었기 때문에 이를 업무 방해죄의 보호대상이 되는 ‘ 업무’ 라 볼 수 없다.

또 한 피고인이 위 샤넬 상표권자의 고발 대리인으로서 피해자를 신고ㆍ고발하는 과정에서 다소간 소리를 지른 것에 불과하므로, 이를 업무 방해죄에서의 위력을 행사한 경우에 해당한다고 보기 어려울 뿐더러 피고 인의 위와 같은 행위는 사회 상규에 위배되지 아니하는 정당행위로서 위법성이 조각된다고 봐야 한다.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.

2) The relevant legal principles (A) The term "business subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act" refers to a business or business that is engaged in occupation or continuously, and is exempt from protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. Contract or administrative act, etc. which is the basis of such business does not necessarily have to be lawful. However, in a case where a certain business or activity itself has a reflect sociality to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable in social life due to a heavy degree of illegality, it does not constitute "business subject to the protection of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002). Meanwhile, "power of interference with business" refers to all force that may suppress and confuse free will of a person, and whether it is a type or intangible.