The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles that the victim was appointed as the president of the Gunsan Branch by unlawful means despite the disqualifications as the president of the Gunsan Branch of the Gunsan Branch of the Do branch of the C organization Jeon-do (hereinafter “the president of the Gunsan Branch”) and was dismissed after the instant case, the duties as the president of the Gunsan Branch of the victim’s Gunsan Branch do not constitute the duties subject to protection of interference with business.

2) Although the victim was appointed as the president of the Gunsan Branch by unlawful means and the status of the victim was not recognized, the defendant thought that he was trying to perform his duties as the president of the Gunsan Branch. The defendant had corrected the entrance door of the office of the president of the Gunsan Branch as stated in the facts charged in the instant case. At the time, the defendant had no intention to interfere with the victim's duties.

3) Even if the Defendant’s obstruction of business against the victim is recognized, this constitutes a justifiable act and thus, its illegality is excluded.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. “Business” subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act regarding the assertion of mistake of facts is an occupation or a continuous business, which is worth protecting from invasion by another person’s unlawful act. Since such business is not necessarily necessary to be lawful or valid, whether it is a business worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether it is actually a work and is the foundation of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the degree does not reach the degree of sociality so far as it does not reach the level of sociality to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013).