Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles recognize the fact that the Defendant did not immediately return home even after receiving the request for returning home as stated in the facts charged, but the Defendant did not have a large voice of the Defendant at the time, and the Defendant was seated only in order to take rest. As such, the Defendant did not have an act of disturbance with intent to interfere with business. Even if the Defendant left the hotel bridge for about 1 hour and 15 minutes, the Defendant did not take a bath or violent behavior, and thus, the Defendant’s act did not constitute “compact” cannot be deemed to have reached the degree of “compact.” 2) Punishment of the lower judgment on unreasonable sentencing (50,000 won) is too unreasonable.

B. The form of the lower judgment by the prosecutor is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s superior position, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., as it is neither tangible nor intangible nor intangible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007; 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007).

The determination of force shall be made objectively in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, the mode of force, kinds of work, the status of the victim, etc.

In addition, the power of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily mean only the ability to directly leave a person engaged in the business, but it is very difficult to make certain physical conditions sufficient to suppress a person's free will so that the person can not freely act or freely.