The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 800,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the defendant is merely merely reported to correct illegal activities of the victim's restaurant business, there is no intention to interfere with the defendant's business.

B. Although the Defendant made a false report, according to the intention and purpose of deceptive scheme and relation between the victim and the police, it cannot be viewed that deceptive scheme against the police can not be the same as deceptive scheme against the victim, and there is no interference with the victim by deceptive scheme.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the outcome of the crime of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and there is sufficient risk that the crime of interference with business may result in the crime of interference with business. Thus, it does not necessarily require intention to commit the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, and its perception or predictability is sufficient to recognize the possibility or risk of interference with another person's business due to its own act, and its recognition or prediction is not definite, but it is not definite, but it is so-called willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant listen to the fact that a female victim presumed to be friendship from the outside of the victim's restaurant enters the restaurant in the operation of the victim, and reported the victim's unlawful business to the police or reported the victim's actual business to the police.