업무방해
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) in the case of interference with the business of May 4, 2012, the statement of Kaf-employee J is credibility, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the Defendants expressed a large voice to F on May 4, 2012; and (b) the Defendants expressed a large voice to F who suffered conflict due to the problem of the management right of Kaf-in constitutes a threat of force; (c) the Defendants expressed a large voice to F who was in conflict with F, and the statement of F and his employees that the customers demanded a refund at the time of the disturbance was rejected without any particular reason by the lower court.
Next, in the case of interference with the business of May 5, 2012, without agreement with F and G, the defendant A unilaterally notified the early termination of the business of Kaf, and the above defendant with a strong physical strength constitutes force.
Finally, in the case of interference with the business of May 6, 2012, the defendants did not notify or consult about the release of the forest to F and G in advance, and voluntarily taken out the forest into the car page with the agent, etc., and the defendants were forced to take out the forest even if they were to exercise F's tangible power not to permit the release of the forest until confirming the relationship between the right and responsibility for the forest. In light of the above, the defendants are sufficiently admitted the intent to interfere with the car page business.
In light of the above, each of the facts charged in the instant case is sufficient evidence, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The lower court’s determination is based on whether the Defendants conspired and interfered with F and G management carpets three times by force, as to each of the facts charged in this case, G’s statements were mainly made from F, and thus, cannot be believed as they are. The J’s statement is based on whether it was made once more than six months after the occurrence of the case.