The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of interference with business by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant did not have any disturbance as stated in the facts charged in this case, and the defendant's act does not constitute a force under the crime of interference with business.

B. The lower court’s sentence of an unreasonable sentencing (1.2 million won of a fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the argument of mistake of facts. The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with another’s business by deceptive means or by force. The term “defensive force” includes not only assault and threat, but also social, economic, political status and pressure according to the right and interest, etc. as all tangible and intangible forces capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, and such force includes a certain physical state, even if it does not necessarily mean that the person engaged in the business is not directly engaged in the business, and thereby makes it impossible or considerably difficult for the person to perform the business in a free and normal manner, and it does not require the victim’s actual restraint by force.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do7943 Decided May 24, 2012). Meanwhile, in establishing the crime of interference with business, it is adequate to deem that the crime of interference with business does not require the actual occurrence of a result of interference with business, and that there is a risk of causing interference with business.

I would like to say.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do944, Jun. 28, 1991). In light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the victim, from the investigative agency to the court below.