The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, by mistake of facts, received psychotropic surgery from medical personnel on the part of the victim for the treatment of herthic disc. The Defendant, even if having borne large medical expenses, was unable to see its effect, and did not have any intention to interfere with the business at the time, and did not guide the victim of the crime of interference with business.

B. The Defendant’s act of misapprehension of the legal principle is dismissed as an act that does not go against social rules and is a legitimate exercise of the patient’s right to unfair medical practice on the part of the victim.

C. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular D's investigation agency, and each of the statements at the court below, the defendant demanded a refund of the amount equivalent to four million won of the cost of medical treatment within the "Ea Hospital" managed by the victim D in the judgment of the court below from Sep. 2, 2013 to Sep. 11:10 of the same day. The defendant's above assertion is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the business of the victim's hospital by force, such as the defendant's demand for a refund of the amount equivalent to four million won of the cost of medical treatment in the "Ea Hospital" managed by the victim D.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal principle as to what act does not violate the social norms and the illegality is excluded should be determined on an individual basis, based on specific circumstances, by examining the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the supplement of the absence of any means or method other than the act. Accordingly, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074 Decided April 27, 2006 shall meet the following requirements: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) the means or method of the act; (c) the balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests;