업무방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant merely conducted surveying the boundary of the land on the door, without the victim’s intention to obstruct the entry and shipment of crops, and there was no likelihood of interference with business as a legitimate act, and the access road of this case is already unable to pass through because it has already lost the function of the road. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s judgment: (a) the Defendant was already aware that the Defendant had already been engaged in the work of entering and shipping agricultural produce, such as sprinkling part of H land through the instant access road that the victim invadeds part of the land at the time of the boundary survey; (b) the Defendant, after conducting the aforementioned boundary survey, was engaged in the work of installing pipes on the boundary; and (c) the access road used by the victim was narrow from 2 meters to 1m; (c) the vehicle was difficult to pass after the boundary survey; and (d) the crime of interference with business was established even in the event of the danger of interference with the operation of the Defendant’s business, in light of the nature of the perishable crops, there was a need for the victim to rapidly enter and ship agricultural produce through the vehicle; and (d) other village residents were also likely to have operated the road through the instant access road and to have started the use of the access road; and thus, (d) the Defendant’s new use of the access road without due to the Defendant’s boundary or other lawful means.