업무방해
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
The main point of the grounds for appeal was misunderstanding the facts of the Defendant or misunderstanding of the legal principles, it was necessary to select a follow-up maintenance company as soon as the contract with the existing company has been terminated, and the maintenance unit price was fixed at the unit price with the existing company E (hereinafter “E”), and it was merely a number of contracts under the condition of employment of D who is an employee of E.
Since these circumstances are also known to the victim company, it does not constitute a interference with business, nor did the defendant have any intention to interfere with business.
Although the defendant sent D a written request for an estimate on July 13, 2010, this does not constitute an act of providing bid information in advance, and multiple companies have normally participated within the bidding period.
It is difficult to conclude that business information, such as the date of establishment of G, is false.
In addition, the selection of the maintenance company of this case was approved by the superior, but it was merely a failure to conduct a sufficient examination. Therefore, it does not constitute a deceptive scheme.
The punishment sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.
The sentence imposed by the court below (unfair sentencing) is too unfortunate and unfair.
Judgment
In the crime of interference with business by a deceptive scheme regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the term “defensive means” means that a person who committed an act causes mistake, mistake, or land to another person in order to achieve the purpose of his/her act and uses it. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of interference with business does not require actual occurrence, and if there is a risk of causing interference with business, and not in itself, the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of business is obstructed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010). Specific judgment of the court below and the trial of the party.