The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. The Defendant’s act of the first argument does not constitute “defensive force” as provided by the crime of interference with business.

In addition, since the defendant demanded that the defendant not the victim be the victim, that is, the third party not parked, it cannot be viewed that the victim was able to exercise his power.

Furthermore, there is no causal relationship that customers have renounced the use of fishing time due to the act of the defendant, and there is no risk that the victim's performance of duties is impossible or considerably difficult.

B. The Defendant’s act of the second assertion is a legitimate act that does not go against the social rules, or an owner of land at the time of the instant fishing, who duly exercises his right to seek the exclusion of interference based on ownership.

2. Determination

A. As to the first argument of the crime of interference with business, the term “comfort force” in the crime of interference with business refers to all the forces capable of suppressing a person’s free will, either as tangible or intangible, and as such, violence as well as intimidation, social and political position, pressure by pressure, etc. based on social and political status, and in reality, the victim’s free will is not required to be controlled. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., it means the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will. Thus, whether it constitutes force ought to be determined objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, and the status of the victim.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). The threat of force on the crime of interference with business ought to be exercised to the victim in principle. As such, in the event that a third party, other than the victim, is not the other party to the exercise of such power, the victim’s free will may be controlled directly, thereby exercising the power against the victim.