The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of legal principle), the Defendant’s act of inserting the victim’s phrase “defluence” on the outer wall of the building in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant building”) in which the restaurant business is operated, constitutes “defluence” under the crime of interference with business, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal doctrine or adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. “In the crime of interference with business” in the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person, and is not tangible or intangible. As such, not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure by the right and interest, etc. are included therein, and in reality, it does not require the victim’s free will. However, it means a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim.

In addition, the power of the crime of interference with business does not necessarily mean only the ability to directly leave a person engaged in the business, but also include the act of making a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will and making it impossible or considerably difficult to act freely.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009, etc.). B.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court (i.e., the victim sublets part of the second floor of the instant building from G to the end of February 2012.