The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) In other words, the defendant misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the legal principles, considering the employee's false remarks to the defendant, the court below acknowledged the crime of interference with business even though he did not have any disturbance while taking a bath within 10 minutes.

2) The sentence of the lower court (four months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1 on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) “power” in the relevant legal doctrine refers to any force that may suppress and confuse a person’s free will.

The power is not a tangible or intangible, and it includes not only assault and intimidation, but also pressure, etc. based on social, economic, political status and royalty.

It does not require the actual suppression of the victim’s free will by force (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). Meanwhile, the obstruction of business does not require the actual occurrence of a result of interference with business, but it is sufficient that there is a risk of causing interference with business.

In addition, interference with one’s business includes not only interference with the execution of the business itself, but also interference with the management of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3231, Mar. 29, 2002). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the following circumstances are revealed.

① As the end of the Mart business was imminent and settled, the Defendant could not purchase goods with merchandise coupons unlike the Defendant’s anticipated, and the Defendant responded to other employees in charge of the business as if they were the entire manager of Mart. As such, the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s resistance are acceptable.

However, if there is a risk of interference with the work of marina beyond the legitimate scope, it would be a interference with the work solely on the ground that there was an opportunity for the defendant to resist.