The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not pay the construction cost that the victim had to pay to the Defendant, and each time the Defendant finds the victim to demand the payment of the said construction cost, the victim was imprisoned and neglected the Defendant.

The defendant demanded repayment in the interest of the injured party due to the above attitude of the injured party, and did not have the intention of assault, and did not have the intention of interfering with the business.

B. Since "power of force" of the obstruction of business by misunderstanding legal principles includes "boverage", it shall be deemed that the obstruction of business under paragraph (1) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment below includes the assault under paragraph (1) of the same Article.

Therefore, the lower court that separately assessed the above two crimes is unlawful as it violates the principle of prohibition of double evaluation.

(c)

The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) against the illegal defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant assaulted the victim as described in the judgment of the court below by interesting in the process of demanding construction price to the victim, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's business twice as described in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant

B. The crime of interference with and assaulting a judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine differs from its constituent requirements and protection of legal interests; the crime of interference with business does not entail assault against a person generally typically at the establishment of interference with business; and the act of assault cannot be deemed as minor as much as not being considered separately compared with the crime of interference with business. Thus, even if the act of assault against the victim was a means of interference with business against the same

Even if such an act of assault constitutes so-called "abscopic accompanying act", it constitutes a crime of interference with business.