업무방해등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty on the ground of the testimony of E and J without credibility, even though the Defendant did not interfere with business operations, is unlawful.
B. Although there was no mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to obstruction of performance of official duties, a police officer was referred to a summary trial on such ground, and the police officer did not properly explain the facts and procedure of the crime, and did not interfere with the performance of official duties, and the contents of intimidation as stated in the facts charged cannot be deemed as intimidation to the extent that the police officer made a fear of fear.
C. The lower court’s sentencing (fine 700,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the argument of mistake of facts as to obstruction of business: ① At the time of the investigation agency from the time to the court below, the victim made a concrete statement concerning the principal facts of the crime of this part, such as the reason why the defendant obstructed the victim’s drinking business, the reason, the method, and the subsequent circumstances; ② at the time of the victim’s operation, the investigative agency and Jindo, who was the customer of the victim, made a statement in the court of the court below that “the defendant called the victim and the police officer as the victim, were sent to the police officer for a time and paid the drinking value, were sleep and slick at the entrance of the drinking house, and slick down with him.” In light of the following circumstances, the victim’s statement differs in some detailed parts, but as a whole, it is determined that the defendant interfered with the victim’s business as stated in the facts charged.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is justified.