The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Around 16:00 on December 24, 2013, the Defendant: (a) knew of the fact that Dental Institute located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”); (b) discovered the instant private teaching institute as his/her father E and the victim F, the president of the instant educational institute; and (c) found the instant private teaching institute as his/her wife E and the victim F, the president of the instant educational institute; and (d) concluded that “I want to talk with his/her daughters in this place, which is not through conversation, so I do not want to talk with his/her daughters.” As such, the Defendant interfered with the Victim’s English class for about one hour and thirty minutes by force by force.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal is somewhat exaggerated time to the part of the facts charged in this case that “the defendant interfered with English classes for one hour and thirty minutes,” but according to G and H’s respective court statements, victim’s legal statements and written statements in the original court, and 112 report management statement that “the defendant renders a plaque at a private teaching institute,” which was accepted as a report, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the academic activities of a private teaching institute as he was a large interest in the instant private teaching institute prior to the police officer’s dispatch.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the lower court rendered a judgment on the ground that the Defendant’s act, such as the instant facts charged, merely appears to be an act to the extent permitted by social norms, and cannot be deemed to have exercised “defluence” which is the constituent element of the crime of interference with business, and thus acquitted

1. On December 24, 2013, at around 15:34, the Defendant was boarding a bus at the bus stop located at approximately 594 meters away from the instant private teaching institute. At around 15:48, considering that the Defendant’s E and telephone, which is his father, was deemed to have arrived at the location of the instant private teaching institute around that time, and considering the time when the Defendant moved to the private teaching institute located on the fourth floor of the building, the Defendant received E phone, and around 15:50 on the day of the instant case.