The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Inasmuch as there was a dispute between the Defendants and the victim as to whether the victim has legitimate authority at the time of the instant case as the president of the center for senior citizens, the victim cannot be deemed to have continuously engaged in the duties of the president of the center for senior citizens in this case.

Therefore, the duties related to the victim's center for crime of interference with business is not subject to protection under the Criminal Act.

The Defendants are the occupants of the apartment house and the senior citizens, and they are the members of the center for senior citizens in connection with the business of August 28, 2017.

Therefore, as there is a right to attend a meeting, refusing to return the meeting documents can not be deemed to constitute “confiscing the victim’s business by force.”

Article 25(1) of the Civil Act provides that the head of the center for older persons shall be entrusted by the head of the center for older persons and the head of the center for older persons and the head of the center for older persons.

In such a situation, the crime of interference with business is not established solely on the ground that the victim did not voluntarily open a door to the center for older persons without following due process such as extradition judgment, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 500,00,000 and a fine of KRW 1 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

가. 사실오인 주장에 대한 판단 ⑴ 형법상 업무방해죄의 보호대상인 업무가 아니라는 주장 ㈎ 형법상 업무방해죄의 보호대상이 되는 ‘업무’라 함은 직업 또는 계속적으로 종사하는 사무나 사업을 말하는 것으로서 타인의 위법한 행위에 의한 침해로부터 보호할 가치가 있는 것이면 되고, 그 업무의 기초가 된 계약 또는 행정행위 등이 반드시 적법하여야 하는 것은 아니므로, 법률상...