The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In a misunderstanding of facts, the defendant, at the first time, had no customer in the dental of this case, talked with the victim D by making a sound first, satising and satising, and later, the customer who had been in a dental surgery merely satisfying the victim’s satisfy, thereby having the defendant paid satisfy, and did not interfere with the victim’s legitimate medical care by force, such as having the customer who had been receiving a satisfy,

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous.

B. Although the Defendant’s act of this case by misunderstanding the legal principles is against the victim’s wrong construction, it constitutes a legitimate act, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legitimate act.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts in the crime of interference with business in the relevant legal doctrine refers to all the forces capable of suppressing a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required to control, but should be sufficiently capable of suppressing the victim’s free will. Determination of whether it constitutes such force ought to be objectively made by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, the motive and purpose of the crime, the number of persons, the form of force, the type of work, the type of the victim, the status of the victim, etc. Furthermore, it does not necessarily require a person engaged in the business to directly leave the place of the crime, and any act that makes the person impossible or considerably difficult to act by creating a sufficient condition to suppress a person’s free will (see Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 209; 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009>