beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2013.04.19 2013고정67

업무방해

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the fine shall be respectively imposed.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a tenant who is a business license or business operator of the cafeteria, Jeonsung-gun D cafeteria owned by Defendant B, and Defendant B is a lessor of the above cafeteria and has a relationship with each other so far. Defendant B and the victim E have a friendly relationship with a high-speed line, and the victim E and F are married parties.

Defendant

B On December 28, 2010, after receiving a request from the victim E to sell the above victim’s building, land, etc. including this restaurant to G, the father of the said victim, the contract was concluded to sell the above restaurant to G around 1.150 million won, and around January 7, 2011, after delivering the above restaurant to the victims, the victim’s phone number, etc. used in the restaurant was delivered to the victims, and the victims were operating the restaurant from the above date to the present date. After that, G paid the balance on June 30, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer of the above restaurant.

After G transferred the ownership of the above restaurant, Defendant A demanded payment of KRW 150 million to G who acquired the above restaurant by asserting that he/she is the lessee of the above restaurant, and G refused this request and caused disputes as to the return of the lease deposit between them, the Defendants attempted to interfere with the restaurant business of the victims who operated the above restaurant by suspending the use of the phone number of the above restaurant using the items in the name of the Defendants.

Defendant

A, around 09:07 on September 21, 201, filed an application for the suspension of use of the “H” number under the above Defendant’s name, which was used in the above D cafeteria by phone call to Korea at the place of Bosung-gun, 09:07, and the victims were prevented from using the above phone number from the above day and continued to operate the business without the lease deposit by phone call to Defendant B.

. set up in the restaurant.