The victim of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are unable to exercise physical power against the defendant couple and leave the office, and they do not leave the office on their own, and they did not have a state of pressure on free will due to the visit of the defendant couple, such as freely marking the photograph of the defendant couple within the office, and there is no direct evidence that the victim was conducting another business at the time when the defendant couple visited the office of the victim. Thus, the facts charged in this case does not constitute the crime of interference with business by force.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on different premise, and the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing (the 500,000 won of fine, the 1 year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In the crime of interference with business, the term “defluence” refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible, and shall not be charged, including assault and intimidation, social, economic, political status and pressure by force, etc., as well as assault and intimidation, and the victim’s free will is not practically controlled by force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447, May 27, 2005). However, as a result of any act, there was an obstacle to the other party’s business.

Even if it can be deemed that an actor exercises legitimate authority, barring special circumstances, such as the content, means, etc. of an act cannot be permitted by social norms, it cannot be deemed that the actor exercises force constituting the crime of interference with business.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do16718, Feb. 28, 2013). Meanwhile, it does not require the actual occurrence of interference with business in establishing the crime of interference with business.