The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) filed an application with the victim for change or suspension of the corporate seal impression in order to prevent a company from being operated by using his/her own name, which does not change the name of representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Company”); (b) and (c) the victim did not pay 80 million won, such as the borrowed money; (d) thereby withdrawing money from the said corporate account and offsetting the above debt of the victim; and (e) the Defendant’s act does not constitute a force under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, since the victim’s free will is not likely to be congested, and even if so, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a act of self-help or a legitimate act, and thus, the illegality should be avoided.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The threat of force on the crime of interference with business as to whether the Defendant’s act constitutes “defensive force” under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act refers to any force that is capable of suppressing and mixing people’s free will. As such, the threat of force on the crime of interference with business as to whether the Defendant’s act constitutes “defensive force” refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s current status, number of persons, and surrounding circumstances, etc., and as such, it should be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons to commit the crime, mode of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.

In addition, the power of the crime of interference with business means only the power to directly engage in the business.