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 evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the victim D of the instant charges by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, although the victim D’s building management work constitutes “business” subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act.

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

5. Until April 1, 200, he had the authority to manage the building of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant building”) and had the intent to interfere with the victim D’s business, which is the management of the C Management Group, among disputes.

The Defendant instructed B to park a car at the entrance of the management office located on the second floor of the instant building (hereinafter referred to as the “management office of this case”), and B interfered with the victim’s building management duties by force by parking a car at the entrance of the instant management office, making it difficult for B to enter the said office, etc. in accordance with the said direction.

3. Determination

A. The term "business" subject to the protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act means a business or business engaged in an occupation or continuous operation for a certain period of time, which is the foundation of social activities. Although a contract or administrative act, etc. which forms the basis of such business is not necessarily a lawful one, it must be worth protecting from harm caused by an unlawful act of another (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2214, Nov. 12, 1996; 2006Do3687, Aug. 23, 2007). (B) The lower court duly adopted and examined by the lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, ① the F was a controlled entity of the building of this case, and the Defendant was in possession and use of the building management work of this case with his/her employees as the representative of the said business, and ② the building of this case.