The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim’s act of preparing for the livestock industry without permission to engage in the livestock industry is a case of anti-sociality with heavy degree of illegality, and thus, it is not a business subject to protection of interference with business.

B. The Defendant’s act did not pose a risk of obstructing the victim’s business.

(c)

Since the defendant received legal advice from a lawyer prior to his own act, he is erroneous that his act was not a crime under the law, and there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the victim's duty constitutes a business subject to the protection of the victim's obstruction of business, and the defendant's assertion on this part is not acceptable.

① The victim did not intend to engage in the livestock breeding business at the instant livestock shed without any permission or reporting procedures, but did not intend to engage in the livestock breeding business at the instant livestock shed without permission, but reported the succession to the status of the livestock breeding business at the time when he/she acquired ownership by winning a successful bid for the instant livestock shed in the compulsory auction procedure. Since then, the victim received a disposition to change the category of livestock from the cat of Naju to the swine.

② On December 30, 2015, Naju City issued a disposition to revoke the notification of succession to the status of livestock breeding business to the victim. However, at the time of such disposition, there was room for legal dispute as to whether a purchaser in an auction proceeding can succeed to a license for livestock breeding business.

Although the victim filed a lawsuit to revoke the above disposition but was ruled against the first instance court, it is after the victim's obstruction of the defendant's duty to prepare for the livestock breeding business.

(3)