Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. Defendant A and Defendant B found the victim D (60 years of age) around 13:00 on December 3, 2015 to be “F real estate and G” located on the first floor of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E building that was leased and operated by the Defendants, and Defendant A extended real estate according to the scale of the area.

It is so big that Defendant B’s act of reducing cosmetics and expanding real estate is illegal.

The victim’s real estate business, etc. was obstructed by force for about 40 minutes, by putting a large amount of money and preventing customers from entering the entrance in front of the entrance.

B. At around 19:00 on February 5, 2017, Defendant A obstructed the victim’s real estate business by force for about 10 minutes, such as “F real estate” office located on the first floor of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E building, the victim D (60 years of age) is the operator of the card terminal business, H (39 years of age), and “it is necessary to keep this store only,” and “I do not conclude this contract with this party.”

2. Determination

A. “Authority” of the crime of interference with business affairs refers to any force that may cause suppression and confusion with a free will of a person. As such, violence, intimidation, as well as social, economic, political status, and pressure based on royalty, etc. is not required to be practically controlled by the victim’s free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1240, May 23, 2013, etc.).