The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not commit an act of disturbing the victims, such as abusiveing their desire or sound.

The Defendant’s attempt to keep his seat in the meeting room of the Plaintiff Company B (hereinafter “instant company”) or in a knife with a knife, cannot be deemed as exercising the power as prescribed in the crime of interference with business by itself.

B. The work of the victims is to conduct counseling with the defendant and hear their difficulties, and the victims have performed their duties at the time of the instant case.

Therefore, the victim's work cannot be interfered with due to the interview or consultation with the defendant.

C. The company of this case conducted an unfair lawsuit against the defendant, and even if the defendant committed a somewhat emotional act, such circumstances should be considered in determining whether the victims' work has been obstructed.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination as to the exercise of force is based on the relevant legal doctrine’s force. The term “defensive force” refers to any force capable of suppressing and mixing a person’s free will, regardless of whether it is tangible or intangible, and includes pressure by social, economic, political status, and royalty, etc. as well as assault and intimidation, and in reality, it does not require pressure by the victim’s free will. However, it refers to a 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 place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons, capacity, type of duty, type of duty, and status of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4430, Nov. 28, 2013).