Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the damage and damage to property shall be reversed.

The sentence of the defendant shall be pronounced.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal in the facts charged of this case that "the defendant found the victim's printing office and interfered with the victim's business by force by avoiding disturbance" is acknowledged as confessions by the investigation agency of the defendant, the victim's statement, and the receipt of new telephone purchase, etc., respectively, as to the defendant's consistent statement and photograph, etc., and "the defendant damaged the victim's telephone by hiding the victim's telephone", the court below erred by mistake of facts or legal scenarios in finding innocence.

2. Determination

A. In the crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act regarding interference with business, the term “comfort force” refers to any force sufficient to suppress and confuse a person’s free will, and is not tangible, intangible, or intangible, and thus includes not only violence, intimidation, but also social, economic, and political status and pressure by force (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do5004, Mar. 25, 2005). Although the victim’s free will is not required to be practically controlled, 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. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do495, May 28, 199); and whether a force constitutes force ought to be determined in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the date and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, number of persons involved in the crime, type of duty of the victim, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7124 Decided January 30, 2009, and 2009Do290 Decided March 12, 2009). The summary of the statement made by the victim of this case is as follows: (a) from around 2006 to around 12:00, the Defendant: (b) was able to take care of the victim and come together with the victim; (c) on August 17, 2012, the victim was found to have come to come up with the victim; and (d) the victim’s buyer was refused to sell, and (e) the victim was able to file a report with the telephone.