업무방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by a mistake of facts-finding prosecutor, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, although it was sufficiently convicted of interference with business on March 5, 2019 among the facts charged in the instant case.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. On March 5, 2019, around 13:15, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s convenience store business by force, such as threatening the victim E (the 40-year-old age), who is an employee of the Defendant’s dong C, located outside of the city of Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, to find another convenience store again, and to threaten the Defendant to drive away and desire to drive out the victim E (the 40-year-old age), at the D convenience store operated by the Defendant’s dong C.
B. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the following grounds.
1) The victim stated in the court below that "the defendant visited the convenience store on March 5, 2019 and did not act against the victim. The defendant did not withdraw the money from the convenience store, and the victim reported it to the police and called out of the convenience store. The defendant was able to go off from the convenience store. At the time of the call to the moving-in owner, the defendant was at the time of the call to the moving-in owner, and there was a police for about one minute. The defendant was at the time of the call to the moving-in owner. The defendant was at the time of the call to the moving-in owner. It was difficult to view that the defendant was at the time of the call, but there was no threat that the defendant would not have been at the time of the call." According to the victim's legal statement at the court below, it is difficult to see that the defendant interfered with the victim's business within the convenience store, and the time when the victim takes a desire against the victim or took an action outside the convenience store was at a very low probability of one minute.
3 The convenience point shall be given at the time of the entry of this part of the facts charged.