On April 14, 2012, at around 03:35, the Defendant was made due to the fact that the victim E, who drives D taxi, rapidly changed the car line from the front side of the F Hospital in the F Hospital in Young-si, and that the accident was obvious.

When the defendant gets off the victim's taxi in front of the 's 's Gabama' which 600 meters away from the victim's taxi, the defendant interfered with the victim's taxi business by force by putting the victim's taxi in front of the 's Gabama in the same Dong', "I am flick, so I am flick, so I am amfl', so I amfl', so I am amfl', and amfl's vehicle for about 10 minutes in front of the victim's vehicle.

Judgment

1. In establishing the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and it is sufficient that the occurrence of the risk of interference with business occurs;

However, if there is no concern about the occurrence of a result, this crime is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9028, Apr. 27, 2007; 2005Do5432, Oct. 27, 2005). 2. In this case, the defendant argued that the defendant placed a stop in order for the victim to take advantage of his her brue driving even when her brue driving, and that there was no intention to obstruct the victim's business. The victim's cab in this court was unable to take passengers on the brue taxi at the time of permitting the location of this case as the brue taxi, and the defendant tried to return to the brue taxi company. Even after the brushing of the defendant's vehicle, the defendant's brue of the victim's brue who is under the influence of alcohol without being driven by the victim's vehicle after reporting the victim's operation.