업무방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (based on factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was delegated with the authority of a director from S with the head of the O organization that was the F director at the time; and (b) the Defendant was in need of perusal of F Accounting Data, etc. in order to attend the F Council scheduled on June 22, 2011; (c) there was no intention or act interfering with business; (d) there was no intention or act to interfere with business; (e) the Defendant, G, H, and I visited the F in accordance with their respective needs; and (e) there was no competitive relationship required from one another for
(Lawiosio). Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the crime in its decision, which is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.
2. The court below rejected the above arguments on the grounds that the defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in the judgment of the court below, and the court below rejected the above arguments on the grounds of various circumstances as stated in its holding. In light of the records and a thorough examination of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just and acceptable, and further, the following circumstances that the court below stated that M "I want to die or die? I will stop the audit. I will stop the audit. I want to open the board of directors room (Evidence No. 191 page. I will open the board of directors system in the police. I would not recognize the chief of the headquarters because P did not have the board of directors system. I would like to hold materials on the operation of F because it was acting as a director. I would have stated that "I will audit as her mother," and I would not move to H's document as "I will have been changed from the police prosecutor's last day" (Evidence No. 198).