A. The defendant of misunderstanding of facts did not obstruct the victim's business since the victim first gets a sound and responded to the sound, and the victim did not voluntarily stop his/her business and did not have any duty to protect the victim.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business of determining the mistake of facts, it is sufficient to establish the crime of interference with business, which does not require the actual result of interference with business, and if there is a risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant continued to ask to female workers at the main place operated by the victim private questions, and interfered with his/her business, and the victim prevented the victim from doing so, and the victim caused the victim to go against this act, and thereby, the defendant was able to sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant caused danger to interfere with the victim's business, taking full account of the fact that the defendant caused danger to interfere with the victim's business.

[Defendant denies the contents of the police interrogation protocol and asserts the withdrawal of consent at the court below. However, in a case where the defendant consented that it can be admitted as evidence under Article 318 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the declaration of consent can be revoked or withdrawn before the examination of evidence is completed, but it cannot be revoked or withdrawn after the examination of evidence is completed. Thus, the defendant's consent at the court of first instance cannot be revoked at the court of second instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Do267, Apr. 26, 1983). Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without

However, the degree of interference with the defendant's business on the argument of unfair sentencing cannot be somewhat weak.