A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) at the time of the instant case, the victim was performing the E development project.

It is difficult to see that there was no "business" subject to protection of interference with business.

On November 4, 2014, when the injured party filed a complaint with the Defendant, the injured party was unable to secure the ownership of the disputed land, and was not designated as the implementer of the E development project from Gangseo-si (be designated as the implementer at around August 27, 2015). Therefore, there was no eligibility for the victim to perform the formation work of E, and there was no actual preparation for commencement of construction. Thus, there was no “work” subject to interference.

B) The Defendant’s act does not constitute “power” of interference with business affairs.

Only the facilities installed by the defendant can not be the power to suppress and confuse the victim's free will.

① 원형 철조망의 경우 피고인은 피해자 소유 토지인 강릉시 D 토지( 이하 ‘D 토지’ 라 한다) 의 경계 밖에 설치되어 있는 것으로 알았으나 피해자 측에서 철거하기에 별 이의 없이 그대로 뒀고, 시유지에 설치한 철제 파이프도 피해자 측이 출입에 방해된다고 하여 철거해 주기도 하였다.

In addition, since the vehicle can move to another place between one container boxes, the said installation of the facility cannot be said to constitute “power” of interference with the business.

② On January 201, 2014, at the time when the Defendant indicated the exercise of the right of retention externally, the land in dispute was owned by C Co., Ltd. and C Co. was in an acceptable state. As such, the Defendant’s possession of the land in dispute was lawful.

③ The victim had opened another entrance with additional costs, but only the entrance is scheduled to be installed on the surface of the original project design.

C) Defendant U.S.C.