The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The instant act by the Defendant by mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine does not constitute a threat to the degree of suppressing the victim’s free will.

In addition, the above act was conducted prior to the business hours of the car page of this case, and there is a separate road available for access to the above car page, so there was an abstract danger of interference with the business.

It is difficult to see it.

B. Sentencing (the sentence of the lower court: a fine of one million won)

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the crime of interference with the duties under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. Here, the term “power” in this context includes not only assault intimidation, but also pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty.

The term "business affairs" in the obstruction of business affairs means the whole of affairs or business affairs continuously engaged in according to the status of occupation or social life, regardless of whether the business affairs are main or incidental, shall not be performed, including the preparation of the original business affairs, and shall also be established in cases where the business affairs are included, and are widely detrimental to their management.

In the establishment of a crime of interference with business, it is sufficient if the result of interference with business is not required to actually occur, and if there is a risk of causing the result of interference with business.

2) The following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court: (a) the Defendant, as well as the Defendant, was unable to enter the instant structure through the above access, i.e., fixing 2 chain pipes to the entrance route of the instant carp parking lot, and then combining them to the floor (hereinafter “instant structure”); and (b) the Defendant was able to do so.