beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2015.12.09 2015고정1044

업무방해등

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a convenience store guest, victim C (the 20 years old, the 53 years old, the 53 years old, the 53 years old) employee of the D convenience store, the victim E (the 53 years old, the remaining) police officer serving in the

1. Around 00:04 on July 8, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the business of the victim, by force of about 20 minutes, such as leaving a place of convenience in Sungnam-gu G where the victim C is working, on the ground that the price sheet in which the victim entered and displayed is different from the actual sales price, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force.

2. On the ground that the victim E, who was dispatched after receiving a report at the same time and at the same place as above 1.3, expressed that “the part of price labelling cannot be taken by the police, so it is good that the Fair Trade Commission, etc. would be able to look back to the police,” and solicited the victim E to return home, the victim C and the customers should be able to look back, and the victim E should be able to speak “the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of each police statement of E and C;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's act in the facts charged was not a threat of interference with business, and it does not go against the social rules, in order to resist the difference between the convenience store cans and beer display price and the sale price.

In light of the degree of tangible force of the defendant at the time when the evidence was admitted, and the time of the crime, the defendant's act is recognized as an exercise of force as provided for in the crime of interference with business, and since the defendant's behavior cannot be seen as a considerable method in society, it cannot be seen that the illegality is excluded because it does not go against the social norms.