① On October 4, 2016, the Defendant found the victim at the street store operated by the victim D in Asan City C market on October 10:30, the Defendant: (a) found the victim on the ground that the victim did not pay membership fees to the newly organized merchants’ association; (b) took the products in the victim’s own lux toward the passage of the products in question; (c) found the victim again at the same place on the same day at around 11:00 on the same day; (d) made the victim enter the said products again in the victim’s own lux; (e) reduced the victim’s bank and soil, etc. in that place; and (e) found the victim at the same place on the same day at around 17:00 on the same day as “I am able to continue funeral services.”

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the victim’s occupation by force by avoiding disturbance as above.

2. Determination

A. The term “power” of the crime of interference with business affairs refers to any force that may cause suppression and confusion with a free will of a person. As such, violence, intimidation, as well as social, economic and political status and pressure based on royalty, etc. are also included therein. In reality, the victim’s free will is not required to be controlled. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the determination of whether a crime constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, capacity, mode of duty, type of duty, and status of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). Therefore, the Defendant’s speech and behavior was somewhat made by the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 200).

Even if it is not a sufficient force to suppress the victim's free will.