1. As to interference with the affairs related to slope tests, degradation boarding devices, light lamps, and entrance inspections of the fourth-story passenger room

A. The court below, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, it is difficult to find it difficult to recognize that the defendant, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, as to interference with the slope test, lectures boarding equipment, light lamps, and the inspection of the entrance of the fourth-story passenger room among the facts charged in the instant case, he/she recognized the fact that the items stated in the slope test report, the checkup body list, and the inspection report are false or that the above items were based on false materials different from those measured at the time of the inspection.

From the perspective of innocence, it was judged not guilty.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) In relation to the crime of interference with business through a deceptive scheme, it refers to using a deceptive scheme by causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business is not required, and if the risk of causing the result of interference with business is generated, and it is sufficient that the crime of interference with business is committed against the crime of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010, etc.). And the intention of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business purpose or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or predict the possibility or risk of interference with other person's business due to one's own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also uncertain (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do41412, May 24, 2012, etc.).