The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The crime of interference with the main purpose of the grounds for appeal is sufficient if the risk of interference with the business arises and the scope of power is broad, including undermining the management of the business. Thus, the Defendant, who was the former representative of the D Agricultural Partnership (hereinafter “Agricultural Partnership”) only issues his/her claim, and the failure to return the seal impression, card, passbook, etc. (hereinafter “the seal impression of this case, etc.”) constitutes a threat of interference with the business.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In the context of obstruction of business of the relevant legal doctrine, “power” refers to any force that may lead to suppression or confusion of a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and includes pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty, etc. as well as assault and intimidation. In order to establish a obstruction of business by force, it is not necessary to have a result of obstruction of business actually occurred, but the risk of interference of business should occur, and the occurrence of such risk must be by deceptive scheme or force (see Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do7927, Mar. 26, 2004; 2009Do2870, Aug. 20, 2009). Moreover, if a person who is legally obligated to act to prevent infringement of legal interest as prohibited under the Criminal Act, performs his/her duty to act, thereby easily preventing infringement of legal interest as a result of omission, he/she can be punished as an act of omission under the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2860.