The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, it is reasonable to see that automobile driving duties in modern society are continuously engaged in according to the social status. Therefore, it constitutes “business” in the crime of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the vehicle operation service of the victim of this case does not constitute the "business" of the crime of interference with business.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence (2 million won in penalty) against the Defendant is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) On May 15, 2017, the Defendant: (a) on the road in front of “D store” located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) opened a front door of the victim E, which was temporarily stopped at the same time; and (c) failed to get off the victim’s vehicle while taking a bath for about ten minutes, thereby preventing the victimized person from operating the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the operation of the victim's vehicle by force.

2) The lower court determined that the term “business” in the crime of interference with business refers to a business or business that a person continues to engage in on the basis of his/her social status, and thus, includes not only the main business but also the incidental business closely related thereto. However, one-time business, such as the relocation of a factory, other than the business that continues to engage, does not constitute “business” which constitutes an object of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do1752, Sept. 12, 1989). The evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the record of this case reveals that the automobile operation of E continues to be based on his/her social status.