The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. In light of the following circumstances, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misapprehending the legal principles.

A. As to interference with the business, the Defendant merely refused to give medical treatment to the person in charge of the “C hospital” (hereinafter “C hospital”) and did not interfere with the business by force. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not establish a crime of interference with the business since it was the point time of the said hospital.

B. With respect to special violence, since the black image CD submitted by the victim was fabricated, it is not admissible as evidence, and the victim was faced with the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant did not have the intention of assaulting the victim with the vehicle.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with business by deceptive means or by force. The term “business” here refers to the whole of business or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of his/her occupation or social status, and it is not whether his/her main or incidental business is (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8701, Apr. 15, 2005). In this case, the term “power” refers to any and all tangible and intangible forces that may cause confusion with human free will (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, Jun. 14, 2007). The term “order to interfere with business” refers to not only a specific business itself but also a smooth interference with the performance of business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2178, May 14, 199).