A. On December 18, 2012, the Defendant, a lessor of the instant building, and “D, leases the instant building to a new lessee, and if sales consultation between the Defendant and the new lessee with respect to the interior house, the Defendant would remove the said building within two days if the agreement is not reached between the Defendant and the new lessee. If the Defendant did not remove the said building within two days, he/she was entitled to negotiate the sales of the goods inside the instant building by concluding an agreement to the effect that he/she would waive ownership of the said goods if he/she did not remove the said goods within two days (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The victim H concluded a lease agreement on D and the instant building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). < Amended by Act No. 11903, Jul. 13, 2013>

On July 20, 2013, the Defendant and the victim continued negotiations on the sale of goods inside the instant building, and due to the price difference, the Defendant did not reach an agreement on the sale due to the price difference, and the victim reversed the lease agreement with D and entered into a lease agreement with the O on July 25, 2013.

However, from August 1, 2013, the victim commenced the interior construction of the instant building from August 1, 2013, and the defendant thought that he still has the right to the object inside the instant building, and that he did an act, such as re-ttaching F signboard to the outer wall of the instant building, such as the time of original adjudication.

In conclusion, insofar as the sales negotiations between the Defendant and the victim are not merely interrupted but merely interrupted as seen above, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant lost his right to the goods inside the instant building even under the instant agreement, and as the victim had already reversed the instant lease agreement between D, the crime of interference with business is committed against the Defendant.