The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was granted the right to use the instant land by the owner, etc. of the “Y in each of the instant land” (hereinafter “instant land”).

After that, the Defendant entered into a contract with the victim C for the use of the above land, and was prevented from entering the above land by parking vehicles, etc. in order to receive usage fees under the above use contract, but it was thought that it was a legitimate exercise of the right to receive usage fees, and there was no intention to obstruct the Defendant’s business.

However, the judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a matter of law.

2. Determination

A. The term "business" subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business engaged in occupation or continuously, which is worth protecting from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. It is not necessarily a lawful contract or administrative act which is the basis of such business. Thus, whether a business is worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually a peaceful and is the basis of social activities, and there is a substantive or procedural defect in the process of commencing or executing such business.

Even if the degree does not reach a counter-sociality, it shall be deemed that the crime of interference with business is subject to protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2344, May 27, 2010). In addition, the crime of interference with business does not necessarily necessarily require the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing interference with business of another person due to his/her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also uncertain.