beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2013.12.20 2013노1966

업무방해

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the testimony of CA from among the evidence which the court below considered as the basis for recognizing the Defendants' participation in business as hearsay evidence, the testimony of CA is not admissible as hearsay evidence, the CB's prosecutor's statement is not reliable, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant F has induced the supporter of M, who is the candidate of the KF, to make a false or duplicate response in connection with the automatic response telephone (ARS method) method in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter "instant public opinion poll"). Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts that the Defendants conspired to establish multiple short-term telephone in preparation for the instant public opinion poll individually, and even though the defendants supported M did not have committed the crime of interference with business as decided by the Defendants, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

(2) As to the Defendant F’s crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant led M supporters to duplicate or make a false response, although the Defendant did not directly recognize the installation of a large amount of wire phones, leading them to duplicate response using the mobile phone, and leading them to a false response, even though the Defendant’s mobile phone camera and text message did not directly recognize the installation of a large amount of wire phones, leading them to make a false response.

(B) The lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant installed a telephone machine for response to the public opinion poll, although the Defendant installed a telephone phone in the name of BO for personal purposes, not for response to the public opinion poll.

(3) As to the Defendant B’s crime, the Defendant is not a resident even though the eligibility to respond to the instant public opinion poll was not limited to the Incheon L residents.