The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it was true that the defendant in mistake of facts set up a car as stated in the facts charged, it was not intended to interfere with the victim's new construction work.

Rather, in order to protect the building owned by the defendant who suffered mental suffering and property damage due to the victim's construction work and provide the tenant's convenience, a dump truck temporarily parked with sufficient space to move, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the victim's construction vehicle is insufficient to pass and that the victim's construction work was hindered.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which concluded that the defendant committed a crime of interference with business on the grounds that the defendant committed a crime of interference with business as stated in the facts of the crime at the time of original adjudication is erroneous

B. The sentence of a fine of KRW 500,000 imposed on the Defendant by the lower court is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The crime of interference with business is established when a person interferes with another's business by deceptive means or by force (Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act), and the term "defensive force" means any force capable of suppressing or mixing a person's free will (Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act); the term "defensive force" means any force that is tangible or intangible; and the term includes not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status, and pressure by royalty; and the victim's free will is not practically controlled by force (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447, May 27, 2005). The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence of a result of interference with business, but also if the propriety or fairness of business is hindered (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1721, Jan. 17, 2008).