The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to interference with business

A. “Business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act is an occupation or a continuous business, which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act. The contract or administrative act, etc., which forms the basis of the business, is not necessarily lawful.

(2) In order to establish the crime of interference with business, the crime of interference with business is subject to protection inasmuch as the crime of interference with business is not established in order to establish the crime of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do1747, Apr. 11, 2003; 2002Do1747, Apr. 11, 2003; 2000Do382, Mar. 9, 2006; 2006Do382, Apr. 11, 2006).

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Do944 delivered on June 28, 1991, etc.). B.

The lower court determined that the Defendant interfered with the normal election management affairs of the election commission by spreading false facts by publicly announcing the notices, on the ground that the election commission cannot perform its duties because of the vacancy in the election management committee members, it will be resolved by filling up for the election management members, and that the Defendant voluntarily dissolveed the election commission and did not have the authority to form a new

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of logic and experience and free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business and mistake of law, contrary to what is alleged in