The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of punishment against the Defendants shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A arrived at the instant hospital around 11:10 on May 31, 2012, and around the time of committing the instant facts charged, Defendant A was not at the instant hospital.

The court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. Defendant B was given medical treatment to the victim who is a doctor of the instant hospital by her mother, and her health has deteriorated after having been given medical treatment by her mother, and, thus, did not interfere with the victim’s medical treatment duty.

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

2. Determination

A. In the case of an ex officio judgment, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the content of the facts charged as stated in the following. Since this court permitted it, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained, since the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

However, the defendants' assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the changed facts charged despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, and this is examined below.

B. 1) In the crime of interference with business, the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts refers to any force that may cause the suppression of a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible, and shall not be charged, which includes assault, threat, social and political status as well as pressure by authorities, etc., and the victim’s free will is not practically controlled by force, and it does not require the actual suppression of the victim’s free will. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, the outcome of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of the occurrence of the crime of interference with business, but is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002).