The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is different from the fact that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s normal taxi business because the victim’s vehicle could move off, even if the Defendant did not deduct the Defendant’s vehicle of the allegation of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, because the victim’s vehicle was in a situation.

Even if the facts charged in the judgment of the court below are acknowledged, the victim was in a state of vision due to the victim's insulting speech or desire, and time was relatively short of five minutes, and the defendant also has a passive resistance to resist and receive the victim's insulting speech, which is a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms in light of the social norms.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The Defendant is an unmarried disabled person, and is maintaining his livelihood by driving a taxi and gathering old age with inconvenience.

The defendant committed the crime of this case with a contingent appraisal of the victim's insult, and there are some points to consider the circumstances and motives of the crime.

In full view of these circumstances, the punishment imposed by the court below (500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles on the establishment of a crime of interference with business affairs is sufficient if the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business affairs, not in itself, but in the case of interference with the propriety or fairness of business affairs, the crime of interference with business is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Do5117, Nov. 28, 2013; 2013Do5814, Nov. 28, 2013). As seen earlier, insofar as the defendant is likely to interfere with the victim's performance of business affairs by blocking the victim's taxi with his/her own vehicle, as long as the defendant's act is likely to interfere with the victim's performance of business affairs.