The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. With respect to a crime of interference with the business of December 4, 2015 and the crime of interference with the business of March 28, 2016, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the disturbance was committed at the date and place recorded in the indictment, but did not reach the degree of interference with business.

2. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with the determination of a person’s free will is all force that may lead to suppression and confusion. As such, it includes violence, intimidation, as well as social, economic, political status, pressure by force, etc. In reality, the victim’s free will is not required, but should be sufficiently capable of suppressing the victim’s free will. Determination of whether it constitutes such force ought to be objectively made by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons to commit the crime, type of duty, type of duty, and the status of the victim.

In addition, the provisional termination is not necessarily required to be a force to a person engaged in the work, but it can be included in the act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to act freely by creating a sufficient condition to suppress a person's free will.

B. “Interference with business affairs” in relation to interference with business affairs includes not only interference with the execution of business affairs itself, but also interference with the management of business affairs. The establishment of interference with business affairs does not require the actual occurrence of interference, but also causes the risk of causing interference with business affairs (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3475, Jan. 31, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant around December 4, 2015.