The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the business of the victim C's kindergarten and child care center corresponds to the defendant's business, and the defendant lending the above kindergarten and child care center to the victim is in conflict with the Infant Protection Act, etc., and its business does not constitute "comfort" and the defendant's act of changing the password of the passbook does not constitute "comfort". However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts charged in this case.

2. Determination

A. The term “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to business or affairs engaged in both occupation and continuous, which are worth protecting from infringement of others’ unlawful acts. The contract or administrative act, etc., which is the basis of the business, is not necessarily lawful.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3687, Aug. 23, 2007). Whether the business is worth legal protection is determined depending on whether the business is actually peaceful and thus becomes the foundation of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the commencement or performance of the business, the degree of such defects does not reach the anti-sociality, it shall be deemed as subject to protection of the crime of interference with business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382 Decided March 9, 2006). In addition, in the crime of interference with business, the intent of interference with business 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 causing the result that the business of another person would be impeded by his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also uncertain.