The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The victim of the mistake of fact is an unauthorized person who is legally appointed by an unauthorized person, and is not a legitimate manager of management affairs, and thus the victim's duties are not worth protecting.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as to whether the victim's duty is worth protecting and thereby adversely affected the judgment.

B. The instant case was occurred in the process of demanding the withdrawal of a victim who is the representative of the occupants, who was appointed by law for the public interest of the occupants.

In light of the degree and circumstances of force exercised at the time of the instant case, Defendant’s act is not contrary to social norms.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate acts.

(c)

It is unfair that the punishment sentenced by the court below (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The "business" subject to protection of interference with business under the Criminal Act as to the assertion of fact-finding is an occupation or a business engaged in continuously or continuously, which is worth protecting from invasion by another person's unlawful act. Since such business is not necessarily necessary to be lawful or effective, whether it is a business worthy of legal protection is determined depending on whether it actually becomes the foundation of social activities. Even if there are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of the business, the degree does not reach the degree of sociality to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable (see Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3587, Sept. 14, 2001; 2007Do3218, Jul. 26, 2007; 201Do430, Nov. 28, 2013; 201Do430, Nov. 1, 2013).