beta
춘천지방법원 2018.02.22 2016노901

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely asked the victim D of the reason why the cost of the skiing equipment rent was increased compared to the previous discount price, but did not make the same words as or take a bath as stated in the facts charged, and at the time, there were several customers in the store, but did not have many customers to the extent that it would reduce the calculation unit.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by mistake.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to the assertion of mistake of facts: ① Employees G and H, who worked at the victim’s store at the time of the instant case, demanded a continuous discount before the store manager at the time of the instant case, from the lower court’s court, that the Defendant obstructed other customers from lending equipment.

The testimony is consistent with the contents of the testimony, and in the case of H, only the student who provided part-time service at the victim's store, and there is no reason to make a statement favorable to the victim, and ② the defendant did not have any reason to interfere with his business because he did not have any guest at the time of the instant case.

However, on February 20, 2016, in which the instant case occurred, it is highly probable that many people have found in the victim's store to borrow skiing equipment, and ③ the Defendant requested F to request F to change the amount that he had been given a discount to the victim at the time of the instant case after inquiring about whether or not to grant a discount to the victim of the equipment rental fee, which was rejected, and the Defendant requested F to change the amount that he would have given a discount to the previous rental fee, and the F demanded F to go in the store, and to go back to the store after again asking F whether or not to grant a discount.

The defendant, who was absent from the store, is the victim who is operating the skiing equipment lending store, and F, is the customer, whether or not the defendant is at the discount of equipment.