Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the proof of the facts charged in this case is not sufficient, and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s act could not be deemed to cause interference with the Defendant’s pension business inasmuch as it did not have any obligation to provide general traffic to the land in the part not used as the Defendant used as the above road, even if the Defendant was unable to access an operation pent with a new bridge installed by the complainant by putting a stone on the part not used as the road among the land in Yangju City, which the Defendant managed, insofar as the Defendant did not have any obligation to provide a general traffic to the land in the part not used as the above road, and the complainant’s act could sufficiently have access to the gate building through the existing bridge installed.

B. (1) The “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the relevant legal doctrine is an occupation or a continuous business, which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act. Although the business is not necessarily required to be lawful or valid, whether the business is a business worthy of legal protection or not must be determined depending on whether the business is actually peaceful and is the basis of social activity.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013). Moreover, insofar as the land offered for public passage or is not a land subject to the right of passage, etc. over neighboring land, one’s own.