The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to bring an accusation against D’s corruption, the Defendant visited the main points and marks a photograph on a mobile phone, but there is no fact that he interfered with the business.

In addition, since the above main points are engaged in illegal business, such as reuse of remaining food, and there is no value to protect the victim's business, it does not constitute the business in the crime of interference with business.

B. Even if the Defendant was found guilty of an unreasonable sentencing test, the lower court’s punishment (fine 500,000) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, first of all, we examine the argument that the main duty of this case does not fall under the category of business in the crime of interference with business because it is not worth protecting the main duty of this case. The term "business" subject to protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act refers to the business or business which is engaged in occupation or continuously, which is worth protecting from infringement by other person's illegal act. It is not necessarily a legitimate contract or administrative act which is the basis of the business. However, if a certain business or activity itself is against society to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable in social life due to its degree of illegality, it cannot be seen as "business subject to protection of interference with business" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5592, Aug. 23, 2002). Even if there is no evidence supporting the defendant's argument that reuse food remaining after the main duty of this case does not exist, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's work of this case constitutes a social life beyond the limit of illegality.