The defendant shall be innocent.

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles that, although the defendant could not be deemed to have interfered with the complainant's land lease business on the following grounds, the defendant interfered with the complainant's land lease business by force.

① On December 23, 2013, the fact that the Defendant did not have any dispute over the increase in rent of the instant land between the complainant and the complainant was not sufficient to deem that the lease agreement between the Defendant and the complainant was terminated.

Therefore, since the defendant can legally use and benefit from the land of this case in the capacity of tenant, the defendant cannot be deemed to have interfered with the lease business of the complainant.

② The Defendant had lived in the village from the time when he was born to the complainants and elementary school, and had leased the instant land from the complainants for about seven years from around 2007 to around 7 years. In light of the social, economic status and authority of the Defendant and the complainants, the date and place of the act, etc., the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute “deficial power” as provided for in the crime of interference with business, in view of the social status and authority of the Defendant and the complainants.

③ Although the Defendant was in a legitimate lessee’s status as to the instant land at the time, the complainant entered into a new lease agreement with I on the instant land. The said lease agreement between the complainant and I cannot be deemed as an “business” subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

B. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. From around 2007, the Defendant leased each of the lands in Jinju-si D, E, and F from the complainant C.