A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of interference with business on the ground that the defendant had intention to interfere with the victim's wedding business, although the defendant did not have intention to interfere with the victim's wedding business, and the judgment of the court below erred by misconceptioning the facts,

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was an intentional intent to spread false facts to the defendant at the time of committing the instant crime and interfere with the victim’s wedding business. Therefore, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① On March 14, 2016, the victim: (a) entrusted the Defendant’s husband B, etc. with the her husband, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to take charge of operating the Dowa Holdings; and (b) to distribute the profits therefrom to B; and (c) thereafter, the dispute between the victim and B, etc. was sustained in relation to the distribution of profits.

B, etc., against the victim’s will, even departing from the instant database. On August 17, 2017, the victim filed a complaint with B and the Defendant on August 17, 2017 and released the possession of the instant database around September 18, 2017, after the investigation was commenced.

② On October 13, 2017, the Defendant sent a text message to a person who entered into a wedding contract with the victim, not only informing him of the content of the official text message received from the High Time Management Corporation by text message, but also sent a message including false content that the operation of the instant New Holdings will be suspended from November 2017.

At the time of the Defendant’s occupation and operation of the instant database.