A. Regarding the obstruction of business, there is no interference with the victim's business because it was possible to pass the vehicle with the intent to indicate that the victim's land was the one's land. 2) As to the obstruction of business, it does not damage the victim's main wall, and therefore it does not interfere with the victim's exercise of right.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts regarding the establishment of the crime of interference with business as to the conduct of interference with business does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurred, and is sufficient if the risk of interference with business arises (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002; 2008Do4228, Mar. 25, 2010). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court, i.e., the place where the Defendant increased the wall and the door were located, but the leased object was not explicitly indicated as the object of the lease, but it was included in the object of the lease agreement. However, the part where the Defendant increased the wall and the door, which the Defendant used as the front door, did not go through the part of the space used as the front door, and the Defendant could not have any error in the judgment of the lower court as to the Defendant’s obstruction or obstruction of business due to the Defendant’s act.