업무방해
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
At around 20:00 on August 24, 2014, the Defendant held a briefing session for the members of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul apartment complex, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, and held a briefing session for the members of the D Housing Redevelopment and Development Project Association, stating to the effect that “The current association caused substantial damage to the property of its members by putting a common share system, such as granting a right to sell to its members and non-qualified persons. On September 2, 2014, the Defendant shall not participate in the partnership’s ordinary meeting on the grounds that he/she would not give a face-to-face to the partnership’s corruption.” The Defendant distributed the printed matter of “D Association members holding a briefing session.”
However, the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association did not have the right to sell land to its members and those who are not qualified for the right to sell.
Nevertheless, by spreading the above false facts, the Defendant interfered with the general meeting of the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association.
The facts charged on the market shall be based on the premise that the D Housing Redevelopment Project Association has no right to sell in lots to its members and those who are not entitled to sell in lots.
However, according to the data submitted by the defendant and his defense counsel, the "qualification of E and F as members who recognized the membership of the association and granted the right to sell in lots" pursuant to Article 19 (1) 3 of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents, and the "qualification of G and H who granted the right to sell in lots and granted the right to sell in lots" is deemed to be difficult to eliminate the possibility of being denied respectively pursuant to Article 27 (1)
Therefore, under different premise, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant spreads false facts.
In conclusion, in this case, the defendant is acquitted in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is in accordance with Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Code.