② In the case of interference with the business of June 22, 2018, the crime of interference with business is not established since the Defendant merely told the victim about the issue concerning the outdoor operation and did not have a big dispute.

2. Determination

A. In the context of the crime of interference with business by interference with business, the term “influence” includes not only interference with a particular business itself, but also extensively hindering the smooth progress of business performance (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767, May 14, 1999). The establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of interference with business, and it is sufficient that there is a risk that interference with business may result in the interference with business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4228 Decided March 25, 2010, etc.). B.

In light of the specific legal principles as seen earlier, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below: (i) the Defendant, at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, was in dispute with the victim who is a licensed real estate agent as a matter of real estate transaction owned by the Defendant’s mother; (ii) the CCTV images of May 26, 2018 revealed that, after entering the victim’s licensed real estate agent’s office, the Defendant took the victim’s face into the victim’s face, the Defendant was in dispute over several things; and (iii) the Defendant’s grandchildren did not appear to have been in a normal degree in light of the Defendant’s speech or speech, and the Defendant’s son’s son’s son was about to go out of the said office; and (iv) the victim made a consistent statement to the effect that at the time the Defendant took a sound and “the Defendant’s claim for damages,” and that it changed the victim’s face.