The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 내지 법리 오해 ⑴ 업무 방해 관련 ㈎ 이 부분 공소사실 기재 일시 무렵인 2014. 9. 10. 경부터 같은 해 10. 5. 경까지 H 주식회사( 이하 ‘H’ 이라고만 한다) 가 실제로 서울 강서구 D 지상 도시형 생활주택 신축공사( 이하 ‘ 이 사건 공사 ’라고 한다) 현장에 나와 공사를 진행한 사실이 없으므로, 피고인이 이 사건 공사와 관련된 H의 업무를 방해할 여지 자체가 없었다.

㈏ 도급계약의 경우 수급 인의 의사나 그 귀책 여부와는 상관없이 도급인이 언제든지 도급계약을 해제할 수 있고, 결국 도급 인인 피고인 측과 수급 인인 H 과의 도급계약은 해제되었으므로 그 해제에 따른 손해배상 등 민사상 책임 만이 남을 뿐 피고인의 업무 방해죄는 성립할 수 없다.

D. The replacement of the construction works related to the violation of the Housing Act does not correspond to the approval of the modification of the project plan, and even if the construction works in this case are subject to the approval of the modification of the project plan, there was no time to obtain the approval of the modification of the project plan under the Housing Act as there was a risk of damage to the building due to the delay of the construction in this case due to the interference of H at the time. Accordingly, the Defendant’s act constitutes an emergency evacuation or a justifiable act, and thus, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. (i) The establishment of a crime of interference with the business shall be sufficient when the result of interference is not required to be actually generated, and when the risk of causing the result of interference with the business arises, and it shall be deemed that the crime of interference with the business is established even when the propriety or fairness of the business is obstructed, not by itself.