The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In full view of the evidence duly submitted by the prosecutor including the statement of victim E (hereinafter “victim”), the defendant should be deemed to have obstructed the victim’s taxi business as shown in the facts charged. However, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The Defendant is a person who drives a private taxi in the instant indictment.

On April 14, 2012, at around 03:35, the Defendant, on the ground that the victim, who drives a D taxi, was able to rapidly change the vehicle from the front side of the F Hospital in the wife population, and that the accident was obvious by day.

When the defendant gets off the victim's taxi in front of the 's 's Gabama' which 600 meters away from the victim's taxi, the defendant interfered with the victim's taxi business by force by putting the victim's taxi in front of the 's Gabama in the same Dong', "I am flick, so I am flick, so I am amfl', so I amfl', so I am amfl', and amfl's vehicle for about 10 minutes in front of the victim's vehicle.

3. Determination

A. In establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require the result of interference with business actually, and it is sufficient that there is a risk of causing interference with business.

However, if there is no risk of a result, this crime is not established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do9028, Apr. 27, 2007; 2005Do5432, Oct. 27, 2005). B.

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, the defendant's intent to stop in order to take into account the victim's desire to drive in a scarcity, and to interfere with the victim's business.