The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the crime of interference with business by mistake of facts, since the construction of the building was interrupted at the time of the instant case, there was no construction work that could be obstructed by the Defendant’s act, and it is difficult to view the Defendant’s act as “def

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (three million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, force in the crime of interference with business is not charged with either tangible or intangible, or intangible, as it is not charged with any force capable of suppressing or mixing a person’s free will, and thus, it is not necessary to control the victim’s free will in reality. In addition, the establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not need to be actually generated, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, not with business itself, but with business in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is interfered with. The intention of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but is sufficient to recognize or predict the possibility or predictability of interfering with another person’s business due to its own act, and its recognition or predictability is not definite, but also the so-called crime of interference with business is legally acknowledged by the victim’s free will at the time of its establishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5826, Mar. 25, 2010).