The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The grounds for appeal (the factual error) revealed that the Defendant sold three drainage lines (hereinafter “the instant drainage channel”) to the land indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, which is the land of a third party (hereinafter “instant land”). However, this is only for the drainage of the plastic houses cultivated by the Defendant, and there was no intent to obstruct the Defendant’s business of cultivating landscape trees, and even though the said drainage channel does not exceed 70 cm in width and 50 cm in depth as indicated in the facts charged, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on a different premise, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination of the crime of interference with business is an intentional crime, but it can be established not only with conclusive intent but also with dolusent intent. The willful negligence as a subjective element of the constituent elements of a crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of a crime is uncertain and it is acceptable as it is stated as it is. In order to have dolusent intent, not only has the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of a crime but also has the internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether the actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime is not dependent on the statement of the offender, but also has to be confirmed from the perspective of the offender, taking into account how the possibility of occurrence of the crime is assessed if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act performed outside, without depending on the statement of the offender.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74 Decided May 14, 2004, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the victim’s land should only be the only land in order to carry out the cultivation of landscape trees, and the Defendant was aware of such facts.