The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the misunderstanding of legal principle) is that the Defendant was unable to drive a mobile phone on the grounds that he did not pay the drinking value or did not interfere with the victim’s business by force.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which pronounced the defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is not required to have the result of interference with business, and is likely to cause the result of interference with business. The crime of interference with business is established in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is hindered, not in itself, but in

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Moreover, the intention of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interfering with another’s business due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not conclusive, but is also acknowledged as willful negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012).

The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the judgment on the above argument under the title "the judgment on the Defendant and the defense counsel".

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하면, 피고인이 술값을 내지 않은 채 피해자가 운영하는 주점 안에서 휴대전화로 주점 내부와 다른 손님을 촬영하는 시늉을 하였고, 그로 인하여 다른 손님으로부터 항의를 받는 등 소란이 있었던 사실을 인정하기에 충분하다.

The above act of the defendant is a dangerous act that may interfere with the victim's main duty, and the defendant also may interfere with such duty.