The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant carried out remodeling construction for the instant commercial building from March 1, 2013 to July 31, 2013; (b) at the time of replacing the locks with the Defendant’s instructions, anyone, except the construction-related persons, was not allowed to enter the instant commercial building without permission from the custodian; and (c) all the stores, including the complainant’s stores, were unable to make a fair preparation for the shop occupants; and therefore, (d) there was no “business” to prepare for the shop occupants subject to protection of the crime of interference with business, and there was no intention to interfere with business by the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's order to replace the locks of each of the stores of this case was only for the smooth progress of remodeling construction and the protection of the victims' property. This constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, its illegality is dismissed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2. Determination

A. The term “business” subject to protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to the whole of the business or affairs engaged in both occupation or continuous, and is not limited to whether the business or affairs are main or incidental, and even if a single business is conducted to a certain extent, it constitutes a case where the business or affairs are conducted continuously to a certain extent or conducted continuously in the status of occupation or social life, or is conducted in close relation to the performance of the original business or affairs

I would like to say.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8701 Decided April 15, 2005, etc.). Moreover, contracts, etc., which form the basis of the business do not necessarily have to be lawful and effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do3136, Jun. 30, 1995). In establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require that the result of interference with business actually occurred, and the result of interference with business is not required.