The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendant shouldered an empty bottle at the entrance of the instant marina, but did not interfere with the said marina business.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and the court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with business refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the victim’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., and the determination of whether the crime constitutes force should be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of crime, motive, purpose of crime, number of persons, capacity, type of work, status of victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1240, May 23, 2013). Moreover, the term “fabing” does not include not only violence, threat, social, economic, political status, pressure, etc., but also pressure by the victim’s free will. However, in light of the victim’s status, it does not need to be practically controlled. However, the lower court’s determination as to whether a taxi constitutes force ought to be made objectively based on the following circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do1240, May 23, 2013).