The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The instant meeting of the crime of interference with business is an unlawful and unfair business due to procedural defects, and thus does not constitute a business worthy of legal protection subject to the crime of interference with business, and the Defendant’s act of taking sound at the instant meeting site and raising a doctor’s salary, etc. constitutes a legitimate act, which is deemed to have been done at the scriptive level for unlawful resolution.

B. The Defendant committed the crime of injury and the crime of assault and assault committed only one copy of meeting material and one set of booming, and did not inflict an injury on the victim G.

In addition, the defendant did not assault the victim H by cutting down the victim H's timber and sponsing him.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act (A) With respect to the assertion that the business is not a business worthy of legal protection, the term “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to the business or business engaged in both occupation and continuously, and is exempted from being protected from infringement by other person’s unlawful act, and the contract or administrative act, etc., which is the basis of the business, is not necessarily lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1747, Apr. 11, 2003). Whether the business is a business worthy of legal protection, shall be determined depending on whether the business is actually conducted in a peaceful manner, and even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, so long as the degree does not reach the level of anti-social protection, it shall be deemed that the crime of interference with business is subject to protection. On the other hand, in establishing the crime of interference with business, it does not require actual results of interference with business, and it is sufficient

(Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7927 delivered on March 26, 2004). (B) health care units and the lower court lawfully examined and adopted the instant case.