The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principle) requested that the employee in charge be present in order to provide consultation on civil petitions submitted to the Labor Welfare Corporation in relation to the application for medical care benefits by G who is the birthee, but the employee in the customer publicity office of the Labor Welfare Corporation, who is not the person in charge of the pertinent work, is unable to pay medical care benefits, and the defendant refused the defendant's request as stated in the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which ruled that a person who is not a person in charge of the party affairs but refuses a legitimate request of the defendant seeking the payment of medical care benefits in accordance with the purport of a final judgment, etc. does not constitute a business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business, and thus, the relevant employee's business was interfered

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

(1) As to the accident that occurred at the construction site, G, the Defendant’s birth, filed a lawsuit seeking the revocation of the non-approval of the medical care benefits of the Labor Welfare Corporation by Seoul Administrative Court 2014-Gu 2051-Gu 2051, which received the non-approval of the medical care benefits of the Labor Welfare Corporation. However, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim that the Labor Welfare Corporation’s non-approval of the medical care benefits of G is legitimate on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the scarcity’s scarcity that occurred from the occupational accident. As to this, G’s appeal and appeal were dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive (Seoul High Court 2015Da47500, Supreme Court 20162 31050, which became final and conclusive). G, unlike the above final and conclusive judgment that “the Defendant and the Plaintiff lost,” she repeatedly filed a civil petition seeking the payment of the medical care benefits based on the final and conclusive judgment.