The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, did not have a misunderstanding of facts, but did not interfere with his/her business since he/she did not enter or leave the store, or the customer who had been in the store did not have any fact out.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the establishment of the crime of interference with business in determining the mistake of facts, it does not require the actual occurrence of the result of interference with business, but it is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business, and it includes not only interference with the execution of business itself but also hindering the management of business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231 Decided March 29, 2002, etc.). We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following circumstances are recognized:

1 C at the time of the instant crime at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, stating that “the Defendant’s sales clerks are not dangerous,” and reported to the police that “the Defendant sold dangerous things at a leisure store.”

The police confirmed the store, and the problem is that it will not occur, and the defendant returned to the store.

After that, the defendant taken the face of our employees into the cell phone and carried them back to the store, and the defendant was faced with the time expenses to the employees who work in the same way as B and in the inside.

The defendant prevented the main passage of the defendant, boomed him, and continued to go on the passage of the defendant.

The defendant takes a cell phone of the knife knife knife knife which the defendant was suffering from any knife, and takes a time to see whether knife women by using knife, and not take money.