A. The victim D attempted to remove goods without permission without any prior notification after destroying the lock locker of the warehouse managed by the defendant in the name of the defendant. Thus, the victim's "business" that the defendant interfered with cannot be deemed as "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act.

B. The Defendant requested the guard company to stop the release of goods in custody in the warehouse in accordance with the warning, and there is no fact that the Defendant directly exercised the victim’s physical power, and therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant exercised the “power” of the crime of interference with business.

(c)

The illegality of the act as stated in the judgment of the court below constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right to attract commercial persons, and thus constitutes a legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether a “business” is a “business” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act, which is a “business” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act, refers to a business or business engaged in both occupation or continuously, and is exempt from protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. Since a contract or administrative act, etc., which is the basis of such business, is not necessarily lawful, the issue of whether a business is a business worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually peaceful and becomes the basis of social activities, and there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencing or performing such business.

Even if it does not reach the degree of anti-sociality, it should be considered to be subject to protection of interference with business.