업무방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the victim thought to suspend the cultivation of Dora, and thus, the defendant planted Dora in a way that does not interfere with the growth of the remaining Doraland, and the planting of Dora trees does not constitute the exercise of force under the crime of interference with business.
2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. The summary of the facts charged lies in the dry field owned by the Defendant’s wife C, located in Gangseo-gun B from March 27, 2015 to April 3, 2015, and even if the victim D leased the dry field from the Defendant, the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s growing of 1,500 trees by planting 1,50 trees at that place.
B. The lower court convicted the Defendant on the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that there was a risk that the Defendant might interfere with the victim’s growing business by planting heavy trees in the dry field of this case.
The term "business" subject to the protection of the crime of interference with business under the Criminal Act is an occupation or a business engaged in continuously or continuously, which is worth protecting from infringement by other persons' unlawful acts. Since such business is not necessarily necessary to be lawful or valid, it is determined depending on whether the business is a business worthy of legal protection or whether it actually consists of a peaceful work and serves as a foundation for social activities. There are substantive or procedural defects in the process of commencement or performance of such business.
Even if such degree does not reach the degree of sociality, it is subject to protection of the crime of interference with business insofar as the crime of interference with business does not reach the level of reflectivity to the extent that it is considerably unacceptable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do3587, Sept. 14, 2001; 2007Do3218, Jul. 26, 2007). Here, the term “defluence” refers to all tangible and intangible types that can suppress and confuse a person’s free will.