업무방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The costs of litigation in the original instance and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In other words, the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the Victim C by mistake of facts, i.e., taking a bath, etc., and ii) talked with the Victim G as stated in the facts charged, but this does not constitute intimidation by deeming that it was made within the loyalty meaning of arranging the unsound relationship with the Victim G and protecting the family.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) In light of the spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, unless there are special circumstances to deem that the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance was clearly erroneous, or in view of the results of the first instance court’s examination and the results of additional examination of evidence not later than the closing of argument in the appellate trial, maintaining the first instance court’s determination on the credibility of the statement made by a witness of the first instance court is clearly unfair, the appellate court should respect the determination on the credibility of the statement made
(1) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of interference with business among the facts charged in the instant case, on the ground that the lower court found the credibility after having finished the direct investigation of evidence, such as the witness examination procedure with respect to C, and found the credibility thereof, and found the Defendant guilty of interference with business among the facts charged in the instant case. The lower court clearly erred in its determination on the credibility of the aforementioned statement.
(2) The record of the instant case reveals that the Defendant was a high school-friendly person G with respect to a high school-friendly person and a person with bad wheels, and thus, the Defendant had a hostile judgment against the victim on August 31, 2014 without disclosing his/her status on August 22:30, 2014.