The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles; (a) the chief director of the C Association, who was the chief director of the C Association (hereinafter “C Association”) to interfere with business due to the exercise of force against the C Association’s community credit cooperatives, shall be as follows.

Although a written statement as to the facts charged was prepared at the time and place specified in the paragraph, and sent it to the president of the CFF, an affiliated agency. However, the content contained in the written statement was resolved by the CFFC board of directors through legitimate procedures, and the Defendant merely notifies the president of the CFF, an affiliated agency, of the contents of the resolution of the CFF board of directors as a part of the chief director’s performance of duties, the Defendant’s above act does not constitute the crime of interference with business,

However, the court below held otherwise that the defendant committed the crime No. 1-A of the judgment of the court below.

In light of the circumstances described in paragraph (1), it was concluded that the victim E committed a crime interfering with the publication of the victim E’s DNA newspaper by exercising power to the C Union’s community credit cooperatives. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

(B) The part of the Defendant’s obstruction of business due to the exercise of power against I is subject to the indictment No. 1-B.

In other words, the request from the I, the representative of the GG company, for the following purport by posting a phone to the I, i.e., the case where the general public misleads the said GG company as a professional agent for the sale and purchase of MV because of the lack of a case where the said I made the said G company as a MV company for the sale and purchase of the said GG company, and thus, there is a series of claims among MV articles. In the future, the request for the deduction of MV-type photographs was made. However, as stated in the facts charged, the above I did not exercise the power as described in the facts charged, with a view to obstructing the victim's publication of the DG newspaper as stated in the facts charged.