A. As to the interference with one’s own business on January 8, 2015, the Defendant did not pose a threat to the victim in a cooling house as if he were frightened or frightened with the victim. As a matter of parking lot, the Defendant only took a terminal dispute with the husband of the victim, and did not interfere with the victim’s duties by force.

2) With respect to interference with one’s own business on February 9, 2015, a victim, who is a lessee of the first floor of the instant building, occupied the instant parking lot site without permission by using the building on the ground of the instant parking lot for storage, such as food materials, etc. without the lessor’s permission. Accordingly, the victim refused to transfer the building even though the Defendant demanded that the victim remove the building above and deliver the site for the parking lot to the victim on several occasions.

Accordingly, the defendant set up a door at the entrance of the parking lot to prevent the victim from occupying the above parking lot without permission, and set it out with locks.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's act is a legitimate exercise of the right as the owner of the parking lot site, and its illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 20 of the Criminal Code as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules.

B. The punishment of 1 deliberation on the sentencing (an amount of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On January 8, 2015, the part concerning the allegation of interference with the victim’s business of the pertinent legal doctrine is determined as to the part concerning the allegation of interference with the victim’s business. Inasmuch as the “power of force” in the relevant legal doctrine is not charged with any force that may cause confusion with the free will of a person, tangible, intangible, or intangible, it shall not be charged. As such, intimidation, as well as intimidation, social economic status and pressure based on the right and interest, etc., are included therein, and in reality, it does not require a suppression 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., and thus