The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is difficult for the general public to stop or stop a vehicle in the part of a passage route, which causes some obstacles to the business of neighboring establishments, the Defendant’s vehicle does not completely prevent the victim’s employees from entering the place of business, and if the vehicle moves another vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, there was no difficulty in moving the vehicle out of the place of business. Therefore, the Defendant cannot be punished for the crime of interference with business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding the crime of interference with business, the term “compact” in the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing and mixing a free will of a person, and as such, violence, intimidation as well as social, economic, and political status and pressure based on the right. In reality, the victim’s free will is not required to control. However, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, the determination of whether it constitutes force ought to be made objectively 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) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is at the entrance of the parking lot at the entrance of the victim at the entrance or exhibition center prior to the entrance or exhibition center of the victim.