[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Gong1989, 711 et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The defendant shall be innocent.

The facts charged in this case are as follows: (a) the defendant is a person operating the court below (definite omitted); (b)

A. On September 16, 1993, at around 14:00, the victim's house located in the 2nd Dong (detailed address omitted), Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (the 51 year old-old), where the defendant was operating the victim's private road located in the above lot number by employing about 10 persons of approximately 5 square meters of the victim's private road located in the above lot number, and where the defendant purchased and expanded the above (mix omitted) and the above (mix 1 omitted) where the access to the second floor house located in the above (mix 1 omitted) was obstructed by using approximately 10 minutes of force, such as the insertion of the above work worker's insertion, etc., and putting them on the said site, thereby hindering the victim's work of creating a group by using a force of about 10 minutes.

B. At around 08:00 on the 17th of the same month and around 08:00 on the 18th of the same month, the above victim interfered with the formation of the unification by the above method as above at the above place. The prosecutor applied for interference with business under Article 314 of the former Criminal Act.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

The court below found the defendant guilty and found the defendant guilty. The defendant's ground of appeal is that the victim of this case tried to voluntarily close his office without any title and without any legitimate legal procedure to establish a chemical team in front of his office and close the passage of the defendant. As such, the defendant's above act occurred in the process of suppressing this act, which does not constitute "the act of the victim as a guardian of the crime of interference with business" but does not constitute "the act of the victim as an unlawful act of the crime of interference with business." Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending

3. Determination

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed in the records as to the facts of this case, the Defendant owned a 2-story 340.6 square meters of the above house located within the boundary line prior to the merger and owned a 3-story 40.6 square meters of the above house on April 23, 1993. However, the Defendant’s construction of a 1-story 9-story 125 square meters of the above site and the above (2-story 1 omitted) was demolished on the building site before the merger and removed the fence installed on the above ( Address 1 omitted) site from the building site boundary line, and was directly connected with the Defendant’s construction of a 1-story 2-story 3-story 4 square meters of the above building site without any access to the building site owned by the victim, and the Defendant’s construction of a 1-story 6-story 3-story 44 square meters of the above building site without any access to the building site owned by the victim.

The term "business" subject to protection of the crime of interference with business refers to the business or business continuously engaged in according to the status of occupation or social life and the incidental business closely related to such main business is also included. However, it does not constitute "business of interference with business" for a single landscape construction project or fence construction project without two elements of social status and continuity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Do110, Mar. 28, 1989).

In this case, the landscaping work of the victim who interfered with the defendant cannot be seen as the work or business that continues to be engaged in on the basis of the victim's occupation or social status, and it cannot be seen as the continuous incidental work closely indivisible to the victim's work, and this does not fall under the "business that is subject to protection of the crime of interference with business", since it is only a single-time work.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the victim's act of landscaping does not fall under the "business" protected by the crime of interference with business, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the victim's act constitutes "business". However, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the defendant's act to exclude the victim's act of landscaping was recognized and applied as the crime of interference with business, or by misunderstanding the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged in this case is as seen above, and there is no evidence to prove the facts charged as seen in the preceding reasons for reversal, and thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no evidence to prove the facts charged and thus, not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Seo-dae (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-tae