beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.03 2018노316

업무방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not interfere with the business of the victim by force, and the victim does not constitute a crime of interference with business in a free state.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine 1) The term “power” of the obstruction of business of the relevant legal doctrine is all force that may cause confusion with a person’s free will, and is either tangible or intangible or intangible, and thus, it includes intimidation as well as pressure by social economic status and power.

In reality, it does not require a suppression of the victim’s free will. However, it refers to the force sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will in light of the offender’s status, number of persons, surrounding circumstances. The determination of force ought to be objectively made by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time of the crime, the motive and purpose of the crime, the number of persons involved, the mode of force, the type of duty, and the status of the victim.

In addition, the power of interference with one’s business does not necessarily mean a force directly to a person engaged in business, and the act of making a certain physical condition sufficient to suppress a person’s free will, which makes it impossible or considerably difficult for a person to act freely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do5732, Sept. 10, 2009). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the situation at the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s behavior attitude, and the result thereof, etc., can be sufficiently recognized by force that the Defendant interfered with the victim’s business by force, such as the statement in the decision of the court below.

In addition, in light of the above legal principles, the victim is a victim of power exercised by the defendant.