The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there is a main entrance other than the entrance to prevent the Defendant in the instant parking lot, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act interfered with the business of the instant restaurant.

In addition, the Defendant has the right to manage the land adjacent to the entrance of the instant parking lot, and it is inevitable to prevent the victim from occupying the said land without permission, which constitutes a legitimate act.

In addition, the defendant's body prevents the entrance of the instant parking lot as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, not to prevent the entry of the vehicle, but to ensure that the defendant does not extract the hump which the defendant has set up for the marking of the boundary.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

B. Even if the judgment of the court below (the fine of KRW 2,00,000) is found guilty against the defendant, the judgment of the court below (the fine of KRW 2,000) is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and adopted by the lower court, the lower court was justifiable to have determined that the Defendant’s act interfered with the victim’s business.

① The establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the actual result of interference with business, and there is sufficient risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002). Since customers and vehicles seeking to enter the restaurant of this case due to the Defendant’s act, such as setting up or leaving a stack in front of the entrance of the instant parking lot, etc., are unable to open the said entrance, it cannot be deemed that there is a risk of interference with business, and it constitutes an act of causing interference with business, and there is a main entrance other than the said entrance.

(2) Furthermore, the defendant marks a boundary.