The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. Taking into account the following circumstances with respect to interference with business, Defendant’s act does not constitute an intentional interference with business.

Nevertheless, there is intention to obstruct the defendant's business.

In light of the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

① As to the developments leading up to the alteration, etc. of the H (hereinafter “H”), the Defendant committed an act identical to the facts charged in this part as part of the preservation of jointly-owned property to return the said money to H, on the ground that the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 2.65 million to KRW B constitutes embezzlement or breach of trust.

Therefore, there is no intention to obstruct the defendant's business.

② Since the de facto discontinuance of H from July 2016, 201 and the use of his/her human and physical facilities to lead U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) to the business, H was de facto dismissed. As such, the Defendant’s act did not substantially interfere with H’s business.

③ The management and operation of H, which is inherited property, on behalf of the co-inheritors of the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”), is merely due to the fact that B was a pharmacist, and the substance was by commission of the remaining inheritors.

Since the remaining money in the K bank account of one Part H H company is the monthly wage for the drug price scheduled to be settled and for the monthly employee, if B excludes the amount actually deducted (2.65 million won), it shall be deemed that there is no money remaining in the above account.

B. The Defendant’s act does not constitute embezzlement in consideration of the following circumstances as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Embezzlement).

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act constitutes embezzlement and recognized this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

(1) B has no legal power of representation with H and one-person beneficial shareholder also.