The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant of mistake of facts found the victim on each date stated in the facts charged in the instant case, but did not exercise his authority to avoid a disturbance, such as avoiding the highness and avoiding disturbance.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) In the crime of interference with business, the term “comfort force” means any force capable of suppressing a person’s free will. The term “comfort force” is neither tangible nor intangible, nor includes violence, social, economic, political status, and pressure based on royalty, etc. In reality, it is not necessary to control the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the determination of whether the act constitutes force should be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, including the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons, capacity, type of work, status of the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). The Defendant did not exercise his/her right on time to the victim as stated in the facts charged, and the Defendant did not lawfully accept the victim’s demand to leave the lecture room to the effect that he/she did not lawfully respond to the request by the lower court.