The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the fact that the reason why the victim of misunderstanding of facts was the suspension of the operation of the factory is due to the electrical blocking of the defendant, and that the defendant attached a paper stating the phrase "to prohibit access without permission" to the factory entrance, even if the victim expressed his/her intent to waive the operation of the factory after the electric blocking on March 28, 2013, it was forced by the defendant's act. Thus, the obstruction of business until April 5, 2013 is recognized, but the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (2 million won of fine) is too unhued and unfair.

The “defluent force” of the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts includes not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status, and right-based pressure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007). In short, even if a person is not directly employed by a person engaged in a business, the act of making a certain physical state that makes it impossible or considerably difficult for the person to perform his/her normal duties by making the person unable or considerably difficult to perform his/her duties by creating a certain physical state that makes it difficult for him/her to control his/her free will or behavior, even if he/she is not directly employed by the person engaged in the business.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009). “Interference with business” in the crime of interference with business includes not only interference with a specific business itself, but also hindering the smooth progress of business performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do3767 delivered on May 14, 1999). In the establishment of the crime of interference with business, the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, but is sufficient to cause the risk of interference with business. Thus, Supreme Court Decision 9Do3767 delivered on April 10, 1992.