A. Regarding interference with business, the defendant company and the victim did not immediately return the number plate despite the fact that the entry contract between the defendant company and the victim was released due to the employment problem of the victim's proxy engineer, and the defendant filed a report on the loss of the victim's number plate inevitably, and thus, it cannot be viewed as interference with business.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

2) In relation to fraud, since the Defendant Company received a deposit fee from AG, not the victim I, the Defendant Company was unaware of I, and there is no act of disposal by I, and there is no relation between I and I.

In addition, since Korea's letter of promotion is a system that is automatically sent from the defendant company to the system, the defendant had no intention to commit fraud.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances revealed by the lower court and the first instance court’s lawfully adopted and investigated evidence regarding interference with business, i.e., “business” subject to protection in interference with business refers to a business or business that is engaged in an occupation or continuously, and is worth protecting from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. It does not necessarily require a contract or administrative act, etc. which is the basis of the business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1181, Mar. 14, 2008) to be lawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do11181, Mar. 14, 2008).