The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. On April 2016, the Defendant occupied the instant factory in around March 2016, which was the time of the instant case.

B. Legal doctrine 1) Even if the victim had occupied the factory of this case prior to the instant case, this cannot be deemed as a “business” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act, as it is a single-time work related to the relocation of the factory or an illegal possession conducted prior to the approval of the use of the building.

2) Since Defendant 1 merely hangs a banner or write letters on the outer wall of the building, it is difficult to view it as exercising the “power” of the crime of interference with the business, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have reached the degree of undermining the utility of property.

3) The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable exercise of right of retention, and thus, illegality is excluded.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the Defendant carried out the construction of the instant factory from August 2015 by the date of the lawful adoption and investigation, namely, (a) the construction of the instant factory until August 2015; (b) the Defendant appears to have carried out the construction of the instant factory without leaving one container outside the instant construction site; and (c) the victim, the actual representative of the E Co., Ltd., from August 2015, managed the instant factory building and carried out the construction of the portion that the Defendant had failed to complete, the victim may be deemed to have occupied the instant factory from before March 2016 in which the instant case occurred.

나. 법리 오해 주장에 관하여 1) 피해자의 업무가 업무 방해죄의 보호대상이 되는 ‘ 업무 ’에 해당하는지 여부 ㈎ 형법상 업무 방해죄의 보호대상이 되는 ‘ 업무’ 라 함은 직업 또는 계속적으로 종사하는 사무나 사업을 말하는 것으로서...