A. misunderstanding of facts (Defendant 2 merely stated that the victims were "wornd and word," and there was no other motive for Defendant 1, and there was no intention for Defendant 1 at all)

B. Legal principles (non-indicted 1 and 2’s investigation-related duties, which are police officers, do not fall under the scope of the crime of interference with business, and the act of taking a bath or sit, etc. by the injured parties alone cannot be said to be a threat of force in the crime of interference with business).

2. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendants demanded an interview with the commissioner of a district police agency on the ground that the police officer, who is the person in charge of the investigation and application for the crime of interference with business submitted by him, did not properly investigate the contents of the petition and application. The above non-indicted 2 and the police officer non-indicted 1 in charge of the investigation into this situation, such as “dump dump dump dump dump dump,” and “p dump dump dump dump dump dump dump dume”, can be recognized as having a great voice, and the "business" in the crime of interference with business" in Article 314 of the Criminal Act means that the defendants are continuously engaged in work or business according to their occupation or social status, and the defendants' act of obstructing the police officer from exercising his/her own political power or performing his/her inherent duties in a social or social position, constitutes a crime of interference with business (see, etc.).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants' appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jae-hwan (Presiding Justice)