The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant, regardless of F, was the injured party, as the rights holder D and 131 lots of land, regardless of the need for consultation with the Military Personnel Mutual Aid Association; and (b) from May 2013, the E Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee recruited its members and advertised for sale from November 201, 203; and (c) the victim company did not have the ability to carry out housing construction and sale projects at all, and thus, the Defendant interfered with the business of housing construction and sale of the victim

At the time, there was no criminal intent to obstruct the defendant's business.

In addition, the defendant's advertisement of specific number of households, usual price, apartment brand name is merely a means to recruit the members of the regional housing association, and the notice to the members of the regional housing association was made to clarify that there is no business right in the said regional housing association, and the project is being carried out by the general sale method at the time.

Since there is no fact externally revealed, there is no fact that the defendant commits a deceptive scheme stipulated by the crime of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The term "business" subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business engaged in occupation or continuously, which is worth protecting from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. It is not necessarily a lawful contract or administrative act which is the basis of such business. Thus, whether a business is worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually a peaceful and is the basis of social activities, and there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencing or executing such business.

Even if it does not reach the degree of anti-sociality, it is subject to protection of interference with business (Supreme Court Decision 2005. 27 May 27, 2010).