The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, by mistake of the victim, was divorced from her husband due to the mistake of the victim, found the victim’s her husband in order to make a conversation with the victim with his or her husband, and received a little sound during the conversation with the victim and received the treatment as the perpetrator, thereby suppressing him or her to have been in a new sected place. As such, there was an intention to interfere with the Defendant’s business.

In addition, it is difficult to see that the defendant exercised his power.

It is also difficult to see it.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, the term “power” of the crime of interference with the relevant legal doctrine as to the assertion of mistake of fact is a form of force that may cause pressure and confusion with a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible. As such, not only violence and intimidation but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on the right and interest are included therein. In reality, the victim’s free will is not required to control, but also must be sufficiently capable of suppressing the victim’s free will. Determination of whether it constitutes such power ought to be made by objectively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons to commit the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim.

B. “Interference with business affairs” in relation to interference with business affairs includes not only interference with the execution of business affairs itself, but also interference with the management of business affairs. In the formation of interference with business affairs, it is sufficient that the result of interference does not actually occur, but also that the risk of causing interference with business affairs arises (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3475, Jan. 31, 2013). Meanwhile, the intention of interference with business affairs does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business affairs or planned interference with business affairs, but it is another’s business affairs due to its own act.