The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendant E continued to study without suspension of studies in Korea and China, and many students enrolled in universities in Korea without deviation, the Defendant did not recognize that E cannot normally enter universities in Korea and in China, unless it is illegal due to differences in the academic system between Korea and China, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a criminal intent to interfere with business.

(2) There is no doubt that the Defendant fabricated the facts about sexual or graduation from L by the J-Do principal of China Cheongdo, and there is no false entry support document available for perusal, and there is no lack of prior entry support document for L and special admission, so it cannot be deemed that the Defendant conspired to commit the instant crime with L and the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, which is part of the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, is established when a person interferes with another's business by deceptive means or by force, and the "defensive means" refers to the use of a deceptive scheme by causing misconceptions or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, Mar. 25, 2005). In establishing the crime of interference with business, it is sufficient that the result of interference with business should not actually occur, but there is a risk of causing interference with business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do7927, Mar. 26, 2004). In addition, it does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another's business due to its own act, and its recognition or predictability is not only definite but also so-called negligence.