The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant, at the entrance door of the E cafeteria operated by the victim D, was accumulated in the road Ga, 3 meters away from the victim D, but the police officer called out after receiving a report, attempted to arrest the Defendant.

Although the defendant exceeded clothes while at this port, there was no intention to obstruct the operation of the above restaurant, and in fact there was no interference with the operation of the above restaurant.

2. The term “power” of the crime of interference with the determination of a person’s free will is all force that may lead to suppression and confusion, either tangible or intangible, and thus includes not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on royalty, etc. In reality, the victim’s free will is not required. However, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc. As such, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, mode of force, type of duty, type of duty, status of the victim, etc.

In addition, the power of interference with the business does not necessarily mean a force directly to a person engaged in the business, and the act of making a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will and making it impossible or considerably difficult for the person to act freely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, which can be revealed by the court below, are the following circumstances. The defendant continued to be moved to the next table, and the defendant was seated to the next table while under the influence of alcohol even though the F, an employee at the restaurant of this case, was boomed several times, and eventually, the above customers feel inconvenience in the defendant’s behavior, and eventually they feel inconvenience.