The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of legal principles (a.g., interference with business): Defendant’s act does not constitute “power” of interference with business affairs.

B. Sentencing: The sentence (2 million won) imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with the determination of facts is a force that may lead to the suppression and confusion of a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and in reality, the victim’s free will should be restricted. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., such power should be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, type of work, type of victim’s status, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below’s lawfully adopted and investigated evidence, namely, the Defendant’s refusal to arrest and use the victim, and the Defendant was likely to have been engaged in the work outside the rooftop, and the Defendant was likely to have been engaged in the work outside the rooftop and the Defendant’s safe passage.