권리행사방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: D, the part-time employee of the victim C’s cream room (hereinafter “the victim of this case”), is an assistant in possession of the main body of the computer server (hereinafter “the victim of this case”) operated by the victim C, and is not an occupant under the Criminal Act; however, D’s taking the victim of this case’s damage of this case’s product of this case’s case into possession by the possessor’s defective intent cannot be deemed to have taken place in the crime of interference with the exercise of rights, and thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the defendant's possession of the damaged article in this case was based on D's defective intent, since the defendant's possession of the damaged article in this case was transferred to himself or a third party's possession against the will of the possessor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do1953, Feb. 23, 198). In this case, D, a part-time Emert in the skin bank of this case, should bring the damaged article in this case for computer repairs, and it was viewed that the defendant's possession of the damaged article in this case was transferred to the defendant, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as taking part in the obstruction of the exercise of the right.
B. The concept of possession under the Criminal Act 1 is not necessarily inconsistent with the concept of possession under the Civil Act, and is more realistic concept.
In other words, the possession of criminal law is a factual basis that actually controls goods, and the form of control is different depending on the type of goods and other specific circumstances.