The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal ① The part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant (the obstruction of business) and the main part of the judgment of the court below which found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged despite the fact that the main part of the judgment of the court below, in light of the circumstances at the time, could be protected by the obstruction of business. The judgment of the court below is erroneous

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two million won in penalty) shall be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On July 2, 2017, the Defendant, at around 13:00, obstructed the operation of the victim’s main points by force for about one hour, such as drinking and horse fighting while under the influence of alcohol at the main points E in the operation of the victim D (the age of 42) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and her beer and beer. The Defendant expressed the victim’s desire to “unfacing juveniles,” and sent the part below the brush calculation unit of the brush at the place, and then the Defendant dumped the victim’s disturbance by force.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s drinking alcohol as indicated in this part of the facts charged, and the Defendant’s business operation of the instant F, located on the first floor above the ground level, did not constitute a business subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business affairs, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the above business establishment at the time did not complete the business registration and deemed that there was no thought of the victim to receive customers due to lack of equipment, etc., and that it was difficult to actually conduct business due to lack of equipment.

(c)

(A) “Duties” subject to the protection of interference with duties under the Criminal Act, which is subject to the protection of interference with business affairs, is either occupation or continuous.