The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although the Defendant did not interfere with business as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the grounds of false accusation and statement by the complainant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. “In the crime of interference with business” in the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8447, May 27, 2005). In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, it is sufficient that the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and that there is a risk of causing interference with business.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the appellate court should not reverse without permission the first instance court’s decision as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, the appellate court asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal, and the Defendant also asserted that the examination procedure for the witness of C, E, and F is reasonable, logical, contradictory or contradictory to the reasoning of the first instance court’s statement, and inconsistency with the contents of the Defendant’s statement in the empirical rule, as well as in exceptional cases where it is deemed significantly unfair to maintain the first instance court’s decision as to the credibility of the statement made by the witness of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do14409, Feb. 25, 201).

Any sound shall be sound without complying with the Gu.