The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the motive and purpose, date, time, place, attitudes, etc. of the above act, the above street store operation does not constitute “defluence” as provided by the crime of interference with business, in view of the motive, purpose, place, mode, etc. of the above act, the Defendant’s mistake of facts did not constitute “defluence” under the crime of interference with business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will. As such, not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic, political status, pressure by right and pressure. In reality, it does not require a restraint of the victim’s free will. However, it refers to a force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.

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 acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to freely act by creating a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732 Decided September 10, 2009). B.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, according to the following facts and circumstances, the defendant and B asserted the right of lease of the store of this case and ordered the store of this case to be ordered.