The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant, at the time of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, had expressed an desire to do so one time, the Defendant had not expressed an desire to do so to the victim or failed to do so as stated in the facts charged, and had no intention to interfere with business.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on a different premise. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below as to the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant interfered with the restaurant business of the victim by failing to perform duties, such as food packaging, etc. for delivery as stated in the facts charged. Thus, the judgment of the court below as guilty of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and it is sufficient that there is a risk of interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do304, Apr. 10, 1992, etc.) and that there is a risk of causing interference with the business (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do304, Apr. 10, 1992, etc.). "Interference with the business" includes not only a interference with a specific business itself, but also widely impeding the smooth progress of the business (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012).

2) Therefore, the misapprehension of the legal principles and mistake of facts is without merit.

B. According to the records, the court below held that the crime was inferior in light of the details and methods of the crime, the mistake was not divided, the punishment was imposed as the same crime several times, and the victim is the victim.