The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the facts charged of the instant case even though the Defendant, by mistake of fact, displayed one’s own goods in front of the victim’s old occupation and told the victim to be robbery in response to this act by the victim, but did not have any other abusive language to the victim or the customer, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. misunderstanding legal principles, since the victim's street store business was illegally conducted, it is not included in the scope of business subject to protection of interference with business.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

(c)

It is limited to the display of the defendant's own goods within the extent that does not significantly obstruct the business of the victim in response to the loss of the defendant's dump of the defendant's dump, which does not violate social rules.

(d)

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable. It is unfair that the sentence (500,000 won) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts can be sufficiently recognized, since the defendant made a speech to criticize the victim and display and sell his or her own goods before the point of time as stated in the facts charged of this case, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The term “business” subject to protection of interference with a judgment of misapprehension of legal doctrine refers to a business or business that is engaged in or continuously, and is exempt from protection from harm caused by an unlawful act of another person. The contract or administrative act, etc., which forms the basis of the business, is not necessarily a lawful one (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do94 delivered on June 28, 1991).