Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are provided by the victim with medical treatment, and the Defendant knew that a prescription for Melelacream is to be issued, and was placed in the waiting room outside the treatment room. The prescription is only claimed for medical expenses without issuing the prescription, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute force as provided by the crime of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the circumstances leading to the instant crime of unreasonable sentencing and the result of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment (fine 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business in relation to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is not charged to all forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, tangible or intangible, and thus, it is not necessary to include not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on royalty, etc., and in reality the victim’s free will is not controlled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). Such force includes acts that cause a person engaged in a business to freely and make it impossible or remarkably difficult for him/her to perform his/her duties.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Do7943 Decided May 24, 2012). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was at the time providing medical treatment to other patients in the treatment room, and there was another patient in the waiting room, etc., the Defendant continued to demand the return of medical expenses due to the circumstance as alleged in the above, and the Defendant, who did not comply with the demand for withdrawal on the ground of obstruction of medical treatment, and the Defendant, without responding to the demand for withdrawal on the ground that he did not report the 112 report, expressed the victim’s desire to be “I are able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to