The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 11, 2018, the victim misunderstanding of the fact obstructed certain partners’ service on board, by failing to transfer his/her position to the appointed executives, even though he/she was decided to dismiss the president of the instant association from office at the special general meeting C (hereinafter “the instant association”) but rather preventing them from gas supply of cars by its members.

At the time, the association of this case was called up by the police officer, so the defendant and the union members were not in a situation where the defendant and the union members could not access the office of the victim, and the victim went out of the office and went out of the office, and the victim did not have access to the office again, and the time when the victim did not have access to the office was limited to one minute.

Therefore, the defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the business, and the victim did not actually interfere with the business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (2,000,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Business” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts is an occupation or business engaged in continuously or continuously, which is worth protecting from invasion by another person’s unlawful act. Since such business is not necessarily necessary to be lawful or valid, whether it is a business worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether it is actually a work and is the basis of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the degree does not reach the degree of sociality to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable in social life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013). The lower court’s lawful adoption and investigation conducted by the lower court.