The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) is as follows: (a) the Defendant stopped the vehicle in front of the Sejong Deputy Commissioner, and did not intend to interfere with his duties; (b) the Defendant did not have any other vehicle until the vehicle was deducted from the Sejong Deputy Commissioner; and (c) there was no request from the victim to deduct the vehicle; and (d) there was no fact that the Defendant received a request from the victim to deduct the vehicle from the vehicle; (b) the Defendant did not interfere with the detailed duties of the actual victim, such as voluntarily moving the vehicle on the basis that other vehicles are loaded, and there was no fact that

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “defluence” refers to all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, which include not only assault and intimidation, but also social, economic, political and political status and pressure by royalty, etc., and such force includes acts of making a certain physical state and making another person freely and normally unable or considerably difficult to perform his/her duties.

In addition, the establishment of the crime of interference with business does not require the result of interference with business actually, and there is a risk of interference with business. Also, it does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interference with another person’s business due to his/her own act, and its recognition or prediction is not definite, but it is also acknowledged as willful negligence even if it is uncertain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7943, May 24, 2012).