The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the obstruction of business, the victim’s sled sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sled-sick-s

2) On the part of Section 1, the Defendant had a computer owned by the Defendant, which was operated by the Defendant, and there was no theft of a computer owned by the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, "work" subject to protection under the Criminal Act refers to work or business that is continuously engaged in or continuously engaged in an occupation, and is not worth protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person, and a contract or administrative act which is the basis of such work does not necessarily have to be lawful. However, where a certain work or activity itself has a reflect sociality so far as it is considerably unreasonable in the social life due to an excessive degree of illegality, it does not constitute "work that is subject to protection of interference with business (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002). (B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it appears that there was a dispute over the operation of the head of a snow sled between the defendant, victim and victim, and H. However, such circumstance alone does not constitute a violation of social norms and thus, it cannot be deemed that the damaged person's work constitutes an unlawful act.

B. According to each of the above evidence, the defendant's sled sled at the entrance of a sledding room in collusion with the co-defendants of the court below.