The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing) stated that the victim of the grounds for appeal did not properly perform his/her duties despite having received KRW 1.5 million from the Defendant, on the following grounds:

The defendant made a claim against the victim and demanded a refund only.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute interference with business, and even if the defendant is found guilty, the court below's punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the outcome of the crime of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and there is sufficient risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do3044, Apr. 10, 1992). Thus, the intention does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, and it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with business of others due to one’s own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but it is so-called “the so-called “the victim’s demand to return money” as well as the so-called “the victim’s demand to return money from 2008Do9410, Jan. 15, 2009,” regardless of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below. The Defendant demanded the victim to return money from 2000 Da410, Sept. 15, 2018.

This is objectively likely to interfere with the victim's music tubes business.