The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles) ① there was no fact that the defendant asked the J to accept the defendant’s child E as if the defendant was not in the Chinese school; ② the court below did not deliberate and decide on what kind of act of the defendant was caused by such danger, what act of the defendant was done, what act was done, ③ the defendant’s assertion that there was no awareness or intention about the risk of interference with business; ③ did not deliberate and decide on the defendant’s assertion that there was no awareness or intention about the risk of interference with business; the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles due to the incomplete hearing and the determination of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, and the incomplete hearing.

2. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the former Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another's business by deceptive means or by force. The term "manner" refers to the use of deceptive means by causing misunderstanding, dismissal or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, Mar. 25, 2005). In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, it does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, and it is sufficient that there is a risk of interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7927, Mar. 26, 2004). In addition, the purpose of the crime of interference with business or planned interference with business is not necessarily required, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility of interference with another person's business due to one's own act, and its recognition or predictability is not only definite but also definite (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do14, May 214, etc.