업무방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine merely stated in the facts constituting a crime as a customer at the time and place, and did not exercise any power to the extent that it interferes with hospital business, and did not have any intent to interfere with the victim’s business.
Defendant’s claim constitutes a legitimate exercise of customer’s rights and thus causes somewhat inconvenience in work.
Even if it can not be said that it uses force that constitutes a crime of interference with business affairs.
In addition, the victim E cannot be the victim of the crime of interference with business because it is difficult to know who is in charge of any business at the hospital, and therefore the victim cannot be the victim.
Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the term “power” in the crime of interference with business is a form of force that may cause confusion with another’s free will. As such, not only violence and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on the right and interest are included therein, and in reality, it does not require pressure of the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons and surrounding circumstances, etc., it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will. Thus, whether it constitutes force ought to be objectively determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the date and time and place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons involved in the crime, capacity of force, type of duty, type of duty, and status of the victim (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do495, May 28, 199; 200Do5732, Sept. 10, 209).