[업무방해] 확정[각공2013상,171]
In a case where Defendants (a) were indicted on charges of interfering with the activities of Gap’s recruitment of students and the operation of a private teaching institute in collusion with the other Defendants who joined the private teaching institute while working in the private teaching institute for Gap’s operation, and (b) reported the expected issues and guidance of the students at the private teaching institute for Byung, thereby spreading false facts, the case holding that the Defendants’ act did not constitute “the dissemination of false facts” under the crime of interference with business, on the ground that the Defendants’ act did not constitute “the spread of false facts” under the crime of interference with
In a case where Defendants (a) were indicted on charges of interfering with Party A’s activities by publishing and distributing advertising leaflets inserted in newspapers, stating the expected issues and guidance prepared at the time when the instructors belonging to C/I were working at C/I/D’s private teaching institutes; and (b) disseminating false facts; and (c) disseminating Gap’s activities of soliciting students and operating the private teaching institutes, the case holding that it is reasonable to view the Defendants’ activities to be acceptable in light of the general commercial practice and the good faith principle, as long as the instructors’ performance is not false, even if the instructors’ previous performance is advertised based on the results of the new private teaching institute, in full view of all the circumstances, even if the instructors’ performance is not false; and otherwise, there is no evidence to deem the Defendants’ activities to constitute “the spread of false facts” under the crime of interference with business.
Articles 30 and 314(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant 1 and one other
Won-Hyi et al.
법무법인 윈앤윈 담당변호사 박석순
Defendants are not guilty.
The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case
Defendant 2 served as an instructor of Nonindicted Party 1’s “private teaching institute for ○○” operated from October 2009 to September 201, 201, and wishes to open the “private teaching institute for △△△” around October 201. Defendant 1 was in charge of various data management and financial planning at the “private teaching institute for ○○○” from August 201 to October 6, 201, while serving as an instructor in the “private teaching institute for △△△△△” in charge of various data management and financial planning from around October 201 to around October 6, 2011.
On October 17, 2011, Defendants 2 conspired to enter into an advertising agency agreement with the T&P and newspaper inserted in the "△△△ P&D Institute" located in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government T&D (number omitted), and distributed 40,000 copies of the newspaper published and distributed a large number of the expected questions that “△△ P&D Institute” was drawn up under the title “The University P&D test” under the title “The University P&D test was conducted in the red form of M&K only.” A large number of the expected questions were drawn up in the university examination; the private teaching institutes from the “△△ P&D Institute” were drawn up in the university examination; and approximately KRW 200,000,000,000,000 were written in the newspaper inserted in the newspaper’s list; and around the 20th day of the same month, a large number of the expected questions that “△ P&D Institute” was drawn up in the Joseon T&D.
However, the facts are as follows: Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, and 3 (the instructors who retired from office from office from the “○○ ○○ Tractician Institute” from the “private teaching institute” to the “private teaching institute for △△△” as Defendant 1”), among the anticipated issues that the Defendants had been engaged in the practice against the private teaching institute at the time of the work of the “○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○○ △”, and there was no unexpected problem that was predicted from the “private teaching institute for △△”; and the number of 200 students listed in the list of major university students was 70 persons listed in the list of successful students, including Defendant 2, and 7 instructors who retired from office as the “private teaching institute for △△ △△”, and they did not actually engage in veterinary activities in the “private teaching institute for △△”.
Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired to distribute newspapers inserted in newspapers containing false facts as above, thereby spreading false facts, thereby hindering the complainant’s activities of soliciting students and operating private teaching institutes.
2. Determination
Generally, it may be acceptable for the Defendants to take advantage of the general commercial practices and the good faith principle to engage in advertising and advertising of the goods. However, in the event that △△△ Institute falsely advertises material facts, the act of advertising and advertising is beyond the bounds of exaggerated and false advertising. As stated in the facts charged in the instant case, it is difficult to easily distinguish the role of instructors belonging to the △△△ Institute from the private teaching institute’s management’s capacity as well as the ability of individual instructors; ② the △△△ Institute’s opening of new private teaching institutes and new private teaching institutes, which are located in the private teaching institute. In light of the following, it is necessary to advertise the instructors’ previous performance as advertisements beyond the bounds of the crime of interference with business beyond the bounds of exaggerated and false advertising; ④ Whether the advertising performance of the instructors belonging to the △△△△ Institute constitutes an advertisement of the △△△ Institute, which is an individual’s private teaching institute, as stated in the instant facts charged, as if the advertising performance of the instructors was written and guidance at the private teaching institute.
Therefore, the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, each of the Defendants is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as
Judges Yellow Module