A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

All of the facts of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are merely the fact that the defendant paid a large volume of noise on the issue that occurred during the bank's business operations. It is difficult to view that the defendant had intention to interfere with business. Even if the defendant's each act constitutes the elements of interference with business, the defendant's act is a justifiable act that does not violate social rules in that it is a legitimate provision for the bank's employees to handle unfair

The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

As to whether there was an intentional interference with the determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the crime of interference with business, the force in the relevant legal doctrine is all force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. As such, assault, intimidation as well as assault, threat, social, economic, political status and power are also included therein.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004 Decided March 25, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, Oct. 17, 2017). In addition, the crime of interference with business does not necessarily have the intention of interfering with business for the purpose of interfering with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the result that his/her business would be hindered by another person’s own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3475, Oct. 17, 2017).