업무방해
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal reveals that the Defendants were able to find the victims jointly with the intent to suppress the victims by force from the beginning, and were able to criticize the victim’s business behavior and damage the house in the store under the circumstances where other customers are satisfy. In addition, the Defendants were able to avoid the disturbance at the store for 14 minutes.
Considering the above point, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants’ act leads to the degree of force demanded by the obstruction of business.
Even so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with business refers to any force that may cause suppression and confusion with a free will of a person. As such, violence, intimidation, as well as social, economic, political status, and pressure based on royalty, etc. is not required to de facto control the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the lower court should objectively consider the following circumstances, such as the time and place of crime, motive and purpose of crime, number of persons, capacity, type of work, and the victim’s position, and determine whether the act constitutes force (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do495, May 28, 1999; 2010Do9186, Nov. 25, 2010). In so doing, the lower court should comprehensively consider not only the following circumstances, but also the circumstances and circumstances of the victim’s free will in light of social norms and evidence.