The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was trying to perform excavation works in a place other than a place where a disposition prohibiting interference with business was issued by the court, and it is nothing more than exercising power to restrain such excavation works.

Therefore, although the victim's work is not a legitimate business subject to protection of the crime of interference with business, the court below erred in misconception of facts that found guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The duty subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act in determining the assertion of mistake of facts is an occupation or continuous work, or a business which is worth protecting from infringement by another person’s unlawful act. Since a contract or administrative act, etc. which forms the basis of the duty, is not necessarily a lawful one, the issue of whether the duty is a legally worthy of protection is determined depending on whether the duty is actually formed in a peaceful manner and serves as the basis of social activities, and there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencing

Even if it does not reach the degree of sociality, it is subject to protection of the crime of interference with business insofar as it does not reach the degree of reflectivity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do382, Mar. 9, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) purchased Nos. 11, 12, 13, and 15 of the underground floor of Busan Dongdong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) on May 26, 201. D attempted to construct water supply facilities using the above underground floor as a research institute for the development of the government department for steel facilities. However, some apartment residents, including the Defendant, have occupied D’s public site of the instant apartment of this case for the purpose of using it as a water supply construction project.