The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that since the victim committed an illegal act of establishing a vinyl house on the land owned by the Corporation, which is not the land owned by himself/herself, the victim's duty is not worth legal protection.

Therefore, even if the defendant was prevented from establishing the victim's greenhouse, it cannot be evaluated that he interfered with the victim's business under the Criminal Act.

In addition, the Defendant did not have any damage to the plastic structure owned by the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. First, whether the victim’s business constitutes a business without legal protection, and “business” subject to the protection of the Criminal Act for the crime of interference with business is an occupation or a continuous business, which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act. Since the business is not necessary to be lawful or valid, the issue of whether the business is worth legal protection is determined depending on whether the business actually becomes a foundation of social activities, and there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencing or performing the business.

Even if it does not reach the degree of social life, it shall be subject to protection of crime of interference with business unless it does not reach the case where it is inevitable to undergo an equivalent evaluation in terms of legal protection.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Do2214 Decided November 12, 1996, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430 Decided November 28, 2013, etc.). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim’s land below, from around 2012, intended to install the instant vinyl house, was the victim.