The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding is that the Defendant was placed on the left-hand side of the guide that the Defendant had been managed by the Defendant and brought the chair to use. As such, the Defendant did not use force to the extent that it did not interfere with the security service and did not actually interfere with the security service.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal principles, the part managed by the Defendant was illegally occupied by the victim, and thus constitutes a justifiable act, since such a part was a measure to recover the status.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (one million won) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with judgment on the assertion of facts does not necessarily require any force that may cause confusion with the free will of people (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016). In addition, the crime of interference with business does not require the actual result of interference with business, and there is sufficient risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 191). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was placed on the 1st floor direction of the building of this case on the 1st floor, and brought about by him on the studle, without asking any form or form, and in reality, the victim’s free will should be controlled (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do10956, Oct. 27, 2016).