The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant does not interfere with the victim’s duties, even though he was crypted by a mistake of fact against the victim.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The crime of interference with 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 term “comprehion” includes not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic and political status and pressure based on royalty with respect to all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing human free will. “Interference with business” includes not only interference with a particular business itself, but also hindering the smooth progress of business performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007; 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012). Also, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s act was not necessarily required to interfere with the business of another person, but also the Defendant’s perception or predictability of harm caused by his/her act, as well as the Defendant’s perception or predictability of harm caused by his/her own act, and that the Defendant’s act was not confirmed by 1001, as well as the evidence adopted.