beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.22 2017노3681

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not intend to interfere with the victim’s taxi business inasmuch as he/she resisted on the wind that he/she gets in or out of a taxi operated by the victimized person, while getting out of the taxi at the victim’s request.

There is no way to exercise power to the extent that it constitutes interference with business in the course of the above Paragraph (b) (the defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's demand for getting off the taxi on the ground of the taxi reservation made by the Kakao taxi app constitutes rejection of boarding, etc. without justifiable grounds, and thus, the defendant's failure to comply with the demand is justifiable, or that it is different from the sentencing grounds). The sentence of the court below's unfair sentencing (1 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal doctrine, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intentional interference with business and no exercise of power is with merit, since the Defendant did not exercise his/her right to force on the part of the victim’s taxi in front of the reservation, by avoiding the disturbance by refusing to leave the taxi in front of the reservation and thereby obstructing the taxi business.

In addition, the victim was in the crosswalk at the time when the defendant was on the taxi.

The case where a passenger was waiting for a reservation passenger, and the passenger actually arrived in front of the taxi and the defendant was waiting for getting off the taxi, and thus, the victim is not the case where the passenger refused to get off the taxi without any justifiable reason.

The defendant's assertion that the victim refuses to take a taxi unfairly is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s obstruction of duties is sufficiently recognized in light of the statement of the victim or witness involved in the sentencing, 112 reporting, and the background leading up to the arrest of flagrant offenders.