The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In the facts charged, the Defendant is a right holder of 20 square meters among 172 square meters of a site located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the said site was provided as a road (hereinafter “instant road”) since the 1970s. The victim D housing association, after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the housing association on July 7, 201, carried out apartment construction from July 2, 201, after obtaining authorization for the establishment of the housing association on May 2, 2013. The said approval plan includes the content that an emergency entrance is installed so that emergency vehicles, etc. can enter an apartment by using the instant road.

Around October 21, 2013, the Defendant, in collusion with E, etc., co-owners of the above site, knew that an apartment emergency exit has been installed on the instant road as above, the Defendant installed cement block fences (2m, 60m in length) and fireproof parts at the site of the construction site, and obstructed the redevelopment project of the victim by preventing the passage of the construction vehicle on the part of the emergency entrance.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with the business is established when a person interferes with the business of another by deceptive means or by force (Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act). The business prescribed by the crime of interference with the business refers to affairs or business continuously engaged in according to an occupation or social status. If it is based on an occupation or social status, it shall be sufficient and economic, and even if it is one kind of conduct, if it is performed as part of the original performance of business with continuity, it constitutes a business protected by the crime of interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1589, Oct. 12, 1995). However, it cannot be said that the business is a mere abstract and conceptual right, authority or social status itself as the object of interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do210, Apr. 14, 2005).