업무방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal 1) With regard to whether the act of the defendant constitutes a threat of interference with business, the act of the defendant in this case constitutes a threat of interference with business, in light of the following: (a) the victim did not immediately know whether or not to correct the cargo of this case; and (b) the defendant did not confirm the correction of the cargo of this case; and (c) the actual ownership of the cargo of this case is the defendant as a rolling stock; and (d) the defendant damaged the correction device and damaged the cargo of this case; and (e) the defendant's act was combined with the omission of the cargo of the cargo of this case after the cargo of this case, it constitutes a threat of interference with business.
2) In relation to whether there was an intention to interfere with the business, the defendant's refusal of the cargo by the defendant, who had been well aware of the date of termination of the contract, is trying to interfere with the business of the victim by refusing the cargo only on the last day of the entry contract. Thus, the intention is probable.
3) Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. The term “power of force” of the crime of interference with the legal doctrine refers to any force that may cause confusion with a free will of a person, and is not tangible, intangible, or intangible. As such, intimidation, social and economic status as well as pressure by authorities, etc. is included in the crime, and in reality, it does not require a control of the victim’s free will. However, in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances, etc., the determination of whether a person constitutes force ought to be made objectively by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the time and place of the crime, motive, purpose, number of persons involved in the crime, form of force, type of duty, and the status of the victim (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9186, Nov. 25, 2010, etc.).