A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant had a large voice of about 30 minutes at the time of the instant case, but did not interfere with the restaurant business, and only dialogued with the customers with a common sense while performing real estate-related duties. The Defendant did not exercise the power to the extent of interfering with the business, and did not have any intention to interfere with the business.

Therefore, the defendant does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

B. Even if the sentencing sentence is found to be guilty against an unjust defendant, the punishment for one deliberation (amounting to 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with the determination of the crime of obstruction of business refers to any force that may cause pressure and confusion with another person’s free will. As such, not only violence and intimidation but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on royalty are included therein, and in reality, it does not require pressure upon the victim’s free will. However, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. Thus, the determination of whether the crime constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons, capacity, type of work, type of victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 209). Moreover, in light of the legal principles as seen above, it is sufficient that the Defendant’s demand to interfere with the business of the victim to lawfully establish a restaurant (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do57325, Apr. 27, 2007).