The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant: (a) found the victim’s office 7 to 10 times more than 10 days and took care of the victim’s office to give him good value; (b) the Defendant committed an act to force the victim’s free will to interfere with business, and thus, constitutes force in the crime of interference with business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendant's act does not constitute a force of the crime of interference with business is erroneous and erroneous.

2. The term “comforcing force” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. As such, not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required to be controlled, but also means the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009; 2008Do7124 Decided January 30, 2009, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below in addition to the facts duly admitted and investigated by the court below, namely, the company of this case (D) holds a factory within the same site as not only 50 employees but also 3 or 4 employees, including victims E, were stationed in the above office at the time of each act of this case, and the defendant visited the office of this case and visited the office of this case.