The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The Defendant in collusion with B of the facts charged, from January 22, 2015 to the same year.

5. Until April 1, 200, with the authority to manage the building of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul World Trade Organization, the victim D, a manager of the C Management Body, who had a dispute, had the said authority.

In addition, the Defendant instructed B to park a car at the entrance of the management office, which is located on the second floor of the above building, and B interfered with the victim's building management affairs by force by parking the ES5 car at the entrance of the management office, making it difficult to enter the office, etc. according to the above direction.

2. Determination

A. The term “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to a business or business engaged in an occupation or continuous operation for a certain period of time and actually becomes the basis of social activities. Although a contract or administrative act, etc., which forms the basis of such business, is not necessarily lawful, it should be worth protecting from infringement by other person’s unlawful act.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 87Do3674 delivered on March 14, 1989, 2001Do5592 delivered on August 23, 2002, etc.). Accordingly, in order to recognize the transferor’s business interference with the business in the event of a dispute over the transfer or acquisition of a certain business, the existence of an agreement on the transfer or acquisition of the pertinent business should be acknowledged, as well as to the extent that it can be seen as a business worthy of protection from infringement by the transferor’s unlawful act, by virtue of the fact that the pertinent business was actually transferred to the transferee after the actual transfer of the business, and the agreement was made in a peaceful manner, and thus, the business was based on the social activity of the transferee.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3687 Decided August 23, 2007). B.

In this case, the following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence adopted and examined by this Court:

1) F is the case of C Commercial Building (hereinafter referred to as “F”).